AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
The petitioner claiming to be an agricultural labourer makes an application u/s 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form No. 2-A. It is noticed that the matter has come to this Court on two occasions and on the last occasion, the writ petition filed by the landlord was allowed and the matter was remitted. On remand, the Tribunal has found that there is no material forthcoming to show that at any point of time, the petitioner was an agricultural labourer in the lands of the landlord. Indeed, during the course of enquiry, statements were recorded and in the statement, the petitioner admits that he was working as a driver of the first respondent and he has been permitted to stay in the house. It is also to be noticed that the wife of the petitioner has been allotted a site. Indeed, to attract the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, one is required to satisfy that he was an agricultural labourer as on the appointed date and he was doing such avocation. Unless, the requirement of Section 38 is complied, the question of granting application would not arise.
In the case on hand, as observed, the main avocation of the petitioner is one of a driver as has been admitted, by him, Hence, I am of the view that question of interference does not arise, Petition stands rejected.
Mr. Shashidhar S.Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.