( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka has, in this writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenged the order made by the Karnataka Revenue appellate Tribunal, Bangalore d/23-5-1974 in appeal No. 75/1974 (IAB) reversing the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolilition, bangalore, in Case No. 20/59-60. The ex-jodi village of Akkalenahalli mallenahalli in Deyanahalli Taluk stood vested in the State on 1-2-1959 under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) inams Abolition Act 1954 (hereinafter called the 'act' ). Respt-2 claims to have purchased on 26-4-1951 the lands bearing Sy. Nos. . 4, 18, 37 and 36 from the then Inamdars. It is his case that he has been cultivating those lands ever since he purchased the same. It is on that basis that he made an application to the Special Deputy Commr for Inams Abolition. Bangalore, for registering his name as an occupant of all these lands. He led oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The Special Deputy commr, by his order d/25-9-1973 dismissed the application of the secona respondent. He came to the conclusion that the lands in question being waste lands the second respondent is not entitled to be registered as an occupant having regard to the provisions of Sec 9 (1) (i) of the Act. On anneal the order of the Special Deputy Commr was set aside by the krat by its order d/23-5-1974. The Tribunal registered the name of respt-2 as occupant of the land bearing Sy No 37 measuring 375 acres and 4 puntas. Having regard to the concession made by the second respondent the praver of the second respondent for being registered as an occupant in respect of the remaining three survey numbers measuring a total extent of 25 acres was reiected. It is the said order of the Tribunal that is challenged by the State in this writ petition. ( 2 ) SRI Narnvan, learned High Court Govt. It is the said order of the Tribunal that is challenged by the State in this writ petition. ( 2 ) SRI Narnvan, learned High Court Govt. Pleader, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that thef Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the land Sv No 37 is not a waste land It was contended that the entries in the Inam Register for a long period particularly those pertaining to the quit-rent, the description of the lands in the earlier records to the effect that the land Sv No 37 is unculturable dry land and the report of the Special Tahsilrtar which indicates that the land SY. No. 37 is a waste land, could not have been brushed aside by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) SUB-SEC (1) of S 9 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted as follows:" 9 (1) Every Inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands other than- (i) Communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works; (ii) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Section 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8; (iii) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar. . . . . . . . "it is under sub-sec (1) of Sec. 9 of the Act that the petitioner claiming through the Inamdar sought registration of the lands as occupant. Though before the Special Deputy Commr who is the competent authority to investigate into the matter and to make appropriate order in this behalf under s. 10 of the Act. the State took the view that the lands sought to the registered are either waste lands or gomal lands, the stand taken pointedly by the State before the Tribunal is to the effect that all the lands are only waste lands and that therefore they are not liable to be registered in favour of the second respondent. the State took the view that the lands sought to the registered are either waste lands or gomal lands, the stand taken pointedly by the State before the Tribunal is to the effect that all the lands are only waste lands and that therefore they are not liable to be registered in favour of the second respondent. In this writ petition also the stand taken by the State is to the effect that the lands sought to be registered being waste lands the Inamdar is not entitled to the registration of the same having regard to the provisions of Cl (i) of sub-sec (1) of S. 9 of the act. Hence, the only question JOT consideration is as to whether the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that land Sy. No. 37 is not a waste land is vitiated for the reasons stated by the petitioner. ( 4 ) IT is dear from sub-sec (1) of S. 9 of the Act that the Inamdar will not be entitled to the registration of the lands as an occupant if the lands are communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works or if the lands are such which are required to be registered under Ss. 4 to 8 of the act, or the lands are such upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the Inamdar. It is nobody's case that the land sy. No. 37 is one falling under clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-sec (1) of S. 9 of the Act. As already stated, the only controversy between the parties is as to whether the land Sy. No. 37 is a waste land or not. The expression 'waste lands' has not been defined in the Act. The Tribunal has taken the view that the expression 'waste lands' means uncultivable lands. The tribunal rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the State that the expression 'waste lands' means lands which are not cultivated for a long period. Sub-sec (1) of the S. 9 of the Act provides for registration of all the lands which vested in the State under the Act except the lands specified in clauses (i) to (iii ). As already stated, it is not the case of the state that the land Sy. Np. Sub-sec (1) of the S. 9 of the Act provides for registration of all the lands which vested in the State under the Act except the lands specified in clauses (i) to (iii ). As already stated, it is not the case of the state that the land Sy. Np. 37 is a communal land, gomal land, forest land, tank bed, mine, quarry, river, stream, tank or irrigation work. Its specific case is that the land Sy. No. 37 is a waste land. ( 5 ) THE expression 'waste land' is used in S. 17 of the Land Acquisition act (Central Act I of 1894 ). S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act gives special powers which can be exercised in case of emergency and can be invoked only in respect of any waste or arable land. The expression 'waste land' or 'arable land' has not been defined in the Land Acquisition Act. In Raja Anad Brahama Shaw v. Stale of U. P. , AIR. 1967 SC. 1081, the Supreme Court after considering the meaning given to the word 'waste' in the Oxford Dictionary having regard to the context of S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, held that the expression 'waste land' means the land which is unfit for cultivation or habitation, desolate and barren land with little or no vegetation thereon. Having regard to the context in which the expression 'waste land' occurs in Sec. 9 (1) of the Act, the said expression has to be given the same meaning as given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. ( 6 ) IT therefore follows that a land which is not unfit for cultivation cannot be regarded as a waste land. In other words, a land which is fit for cultivation cannot be regarded as a waste land. As the essence of the master is the suitability o. f the land for cultivation, the question as to whether the land was in fact cultivated or not is not relevant. If the land is tit tor cultivation even though the same is not actually cultivated, it cannot be regarded as a waste land. The discussion in the order of the tribunal shows that the Tribunal has also taken the same view. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal after considering the material on record has held in paras 14 to 16 that all the lands were fit for cultivation. The discussion in the order of the tribunal shows that the Tribunal has also taken the same view. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal after considering the material on record has held in paras 14 to 16 that all the lands were fit for cultivation. The principal endeavour of Sri Narayan was to demolish the said finding. The Tribunal has taken the view that the entries in the Inam Registers particularly those bearing on the question of quit-rent which describe the land in question as unculturable dry land and the report of the Special Tahsildar to the effect that the land in question was not cultivated for a long period cannot be regarded sufficient to take the view that the land in question viz, Sy. No. 37 is unfit for cultivation and therefore a waste land having regard to the positive evidence available in the case to the effect that at any rate in the year 1961-62 the land was cultivated. The Tribunal has in this behalf adverted to the observation of the Special Deputy Commr based on the pahanies for the year 1961-62. The pahani in the year 1961-62 shows that the land Sy. No. 37 was brought under cultivation. The Special deputy Commr has observed that the effort of the 2nd Respt in bringing such an extensive land under cultivation is highly commendable and laudable as he has undertaken such a massive agricultural operation in these hard days of food shortage. Even assuming for the sake or argument that the evidence produced by the second respondent to the effect that the land in question was actually cultivated from the year 1961 cannot be accepted having regard to the other evidence relied upon by the State, the positive evidence in regard to actual cultivation of the land Survey no. 37 in the year 1961-62 cannot be brushed aside. The said material clearly indicates that it was possible for the second respondent to cultivate such an extensive land and to grow agricultural produce during the year 1961-62. This material clearly indicates that the land survey No. 37 was fit for cultivation in the year 1961-62. It is no doubt true that the relevant date for consideration is the date of vesting viz, 1-2-1959. This material clearly indicates that the land survey No. 37 was fit for cultivation in the year 1961-62. It is no doubt true that the relevant date for consideration is the date of vesting viz, 1-2-1959. The second respondent has to establish that it is on that data that the land Survey No. 37 was not a waste land but a land which was fit for cultivation. If the land Survey No. 37 was fit for cultivation in the year 1961-62 the necessary and reasonable inference to be drawn from this circumstance is that the land was also fit for cultivation during the year 1958-59 as also on the date of vesting. It is not possible to take the view that the land which was fit for cultivation in the year 1961-62 can be regarded as a land which was unfit for cultivation as on the date of vesting. As already stated, it is not the case of the State that the land in question can be brought in the other category of lands viz, cummunal lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works. In my opinion, the Tribunal was clearly justified in drawing an inference from the pahanies for the year 1961-62 that Sy. No. 37 was not a waste land but a land which was fit for cultivation as on the date of vesting. As already stated the material relied upon by the petitioner may indicate that the land was not actually cultivated till the date of vesting, but it is not sufficient to draw an inference that the land Sy. No. 37 was unfit for cultivation on the date of vesting having regard to the fact that the land was actually cultivated in the year 1961-62. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in this behalf, therefore, does not call for interference in this writ petition. ( 8 ) AS the land Sy. No. 37 is not a waste land the second respondent was clearly entitled to be registered as an occupant of the said land. ( 9 ) BEFORE conclusion, it is necessary to observe that so far as the claim of the second respondent for registration of the remaining three lands are concerned, the same having been rejected on the concession made by him, no other question arises lor consideration in this writ petition. ( 9 ) BEFORE conclusion, it is necessary to observe that so far as the claim of the second respondent for registration of the remaining three lands are concerned, the same having been rejected on the concession made by him, no other question arises lor consideration in this writ petition. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .