Chikkanna Bin Rajegowda Since Deceased ... vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2010
13. In the instant case, the learned Single notw.
noticed the effect of Section 21. Reliance:-placed» the
Single Judge on the decision? in theocase
JAYADEVARAO Vs THE LAND sins: UTTARA
KANNADA msrmcr ANL'i_GTHEi§S:_ :2._Voo'3g4) 2339 is not
apposite to the facts of said case, the
effect of the proVi'sio'ns' contained 1indef'Se.ction 21(1) of the Act
is not co1vivsidere*df;_V made therein to the effect
that all that was considered was as to whether
the sub~.~t_enant" vsfas..cu1tiVating the land as on 01.03.1974 or
immediategr prior ther'e't'o,V are the result of non-consideration of
thee. slijhflease under Section 21(1) of the Act and
therefore thelliegarned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on
said" Vjiidgment and in proceeding on the basis of the
provisions of Section 49 without noticing the provisions
[contained under section 21 (1) of the Act.
» Insofar as the contention urged by the Counsel for the
fillants on the basis of the judgment in the case of BAKILANA
CI-IINNAPPA VS LAND TRIBUNAL MERCARA TALUK AND OTHERS