K.L. MANJUNATH, J.

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.3411/2003 dated 17-02-2003 the present appeal is filed.

2. The facts relating to this case are as hereunder:

The appellant was the owner of 10 Acres of land situated in Sy. No.31 (new No.45/01) of Lingdheer Mallasandra, Hoskote Taluk. The land was leased in favour of Late Ramaiah, who was the father of the respondents 3 to 6 herein. The lease in favour of Ramaiah is not in dispute. After the death of Ramaiah; his children were cultivating the land. Since the rainfall in Hoskote Taluk started receding, on the request of the tenant, the appellant permitted the tenant to grow casuarina trees instead of raising crops like ragi and pulses, etc., Accordingly casuarina trees were raised.

3. On vesting the land due to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the respondent No.3 filed application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The occupancy right was granted in favour of the respondent No.3 by the Land Tribunal on behalf of the joint family. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal, Hoskote, dated 31-10-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition, which petition came to be dismissed on 17-02-2003. Challenging the concurrent finding the present appeal is filed.

4. Sri. P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following grounds in support of his arguments:

(1) Raising of casuarina trees does not come under the definition of ‘agriculture’ and that no cultivation activities are taken place as on the date 01-03-1974.

(2) The respondent No.3 being an employee of KEB is not entitled to file application in Form No.7.

On these two grounds he requests the court to set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned Government Pleader supporting the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge contends that raising of casuarina trees amounts to cultivation and the same cannot be taken away from the definition of ‘agriculture’. She further submits that even though respondent No.3 is an employee of KEB since land was leased in favour of his father as respondent No.3 being elder brother and kartha of the joint family, he is entitled to file application for occupancy rights.

She further submits that the land was granted to the respondent No.3 on behalf of his brothers and the lease is heritable one. Therefore, she requests the court to dismiss the writ appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties what is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition?

7. The learned counsel for appellant is not disputing the fact that the land was leased by the appellant in favour of the father of the respondent No.3 – Late Ramaiah and appellant is also not disputing the cultivation of the land by the said Ramaiah. Further, it is also not in dispute that with the permission of the appellant Ramaiah had planted casuarina trees. The only dispute is whether rising of casuarina trees amounts to cultivation and whether there is any surrender of lease by Ramaiah during his life time or by his legal representatives after his death before 01-03-1974 in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and whether the respondent No.3 can maintain the application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of land in question even though he is working in KEB.

8. Section 2-A(1) denies what is ‘agriculture’. Which reads a hereunder:

“2. Definitions.-(A) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

.(1) ‘agriculture; includes-

.(a) acquaculture; (aa) horticulture;

.(b) the raising of crops, grass or garden produce;

.(c) dairy farming;

.(d) poultry farming;

.(e) breeding of livestock;

.(f) grazing;

But does not include the cutting of wood only.”

9. Sub-Section (10) of Section 2 defines