JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) WHILE disagreeing with the view taken in Rayappa Basappa Killed v. Land Tribunal and others a Division Bench of this Court has referred to a Full Bench, the following two questions of law for decision under Sec. 7 of the Karnataka High Court, Act, 1961 (1 ). Whether a land held by a person in his capacity as a tenant, immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, which was not in his actual possession before the said date stands transferred to and vests in the State Government under sub-section (1) of terred to and vests in the State Govt under sub-sec (1) of Sec. 44 if the land is not held by him under a lease permitted by Sec. 5 of the Act ? (2) Whether a 'tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment act but was wrongfully or illegally prevented from doing so, is entitled to registration of occupancy rights under Sec. 45 of the Act ? ( 2 ) THE decision on those questions, depends upon the meaning and scope of the following provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Sec. 2 (11) defines "to cultivate personally" as follows : cultivate land on one's own account; (i) by one's own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or (iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash orkind but not in crop share under the personal supervision of one self or by member of one's family. Sec. 2 (34) defines "tenant". It means : an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes : - (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Sec. 4; (ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction), Act, 1961; (iii) a, person who is a permanent tenant; and (iv) a person who is a protected tenant;chapter III of the Act deals with conferment of ownership on tenants. Sec. 44 thereunder, so far as it is material, provides : 44. Sec. 44 thereunder, so far as it is material, provides : 44. Vesting of land in the State Government- (1) All lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under Sec. 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. Sec. 45 (1) provides : 45. Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain conditions- (1) Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such sub-tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or sub-tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally. * * * * * * the amendment Act referred to in Ser. 44 came into force with effect from first March, 1974, that is, the date of vesting of land in the State government. ( 3 ) WE will now refer to the decision in Rayappa's case (1 ). While dealing with the scope of Secs. 44 (1) and 45, it was observed at page 220: in a case like this where the alleged tenant nas not been in possession of the Agricultural land and he has not been cultivating it personally immediately prior to the date oi vesting, viz. , 1-3-1974, such land does not vest in the State Government under Sec. 44, and if it does not vest in the State Government the tenant is not entitled to be registered as occupant. It is thus laid down that the land which has not been in possession of the alleged tenant, and has not been personally cultivated by him immediately prior to. the date of vesting, does not vest in the State Government under Sec. 44, In our view, the first part of the above observation appears to be not correct. It does not reflect the true scope of Sec. 44 (1 ). the date of vesting, does not vest in the State Government under Sec. 44, In our view, the first part of the above observation appears to be not correct. It does not reflect the true scope of Sec. 44 (1 ). That section commences with the words " All lands held by or in the possession oi tenants. . . . . . . . , stand transferred to and vest in the State government". It provides that the lands not only in the actual possession of tenants but also those held by them immediately prior to first March, 1974, shall vest in the State Government. The land held by a tenant may not be in his actual possession. The words "to hold land" although not defined under the Act, but we can take their meaning from the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964, as Sec. 2 (b) of the Act provides that words and expressions used, but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka, Land Revenue Act. Under Sec. 2 (11) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964, the expression "to hold land" or to be a "land owner or holder of land" is defined to mean "to be in lawful possession of land whether such possession is actual or not''. It is clear from this definition that the expression "all lands held" used in S. 44 (l) has to be understood as meaning thereby, the lands in lawful possession of a tenant, whether such possession is actual or not. Therefore, even if the land was not in the actual possession of the tenant immediately prior to 1st March, 1974,, if it was a tenanted land, it vests in the State Govt. That the land cannot be registered in favour of the tenant woh was not in actual possession immediately prior to first March 1974, is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the land stands vested in the State Government under Sec. 44 of the Act. A division bench of this Court in Nagappa Devanna Naik v. Venkataramana Thimmanna naik and another WA. 580|76 dt. 23-11-1977. has also observed to the same effect. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench, said : ' the Amendment Act was brought into force on 1-3-1974. A division bench of this Court in Nagappa Devanna Naik v. Venkataramana Thimmanna naik and another WA. 580|76 dt. 23-11-1977. has also observed to the same effect. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench, said : ' the Amendment Act was brought into force on 1-3-1974. So, what is relevant for the porpose of the Act and determination by the tribunal is whether the lands in respect of which proceedings are taken under Chapter III, were tenanted lands being cultivated by the alleged tenants immediately prior to 1-3-1974. If the land or lands were tenanted lands, to which Sec. 44 is attracted, such lands vest in the State Government on 1-3-1974". We, however, emphasise here that the land must have been tenanted immediately prior to first March, 1974, and not at any time in the past. We answer the first question in the affirmative. ( 4 ) THIS takes us to the second question. It envisages the case of a tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the lands personally immediately prior to first March, 1974, but was wrongfully or illegally prevented from doing so. The question is whether such person is entitled to registration of occupancy rights under Sec. 45. The answer to the question, in our view, should be in the negative. Sec. 45 conferring occupancy rights lays down two conditions : (i) the person claiming must have been either a permanent tenant, protected tenant, other tenant or sub-tenant immediately before first march. 1974 ; and (ii) that such person must have been personally cultivating the land immediately before first March, 1974. The primary requirement for registration of occupancy rights, therefore, is that the person claiming such right must have been cultivating the land personally immediately prior to 1st March, 1974. If he was then out of possession by wrongful or illegal act of others, he cannot be registered as occupant. He is not entitled to occupancy right merely on proof that the land was tenanted and so vested in the State Government. In this context, it may not be out of place to observe that the Act provides procedures to recover possession from an unauthorised occupant by a person entitled to such possession. Secs. 41, 121 and 129 provide for such remedies. In this context, it may not be out of place to observe that the Act provides procedures to recover possession from an unauthorised occupant by a person entitled to such possession. Secs. 41, 121 and 129 provide for such remedies. The tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally immediately prior to first March, 1974, but was wrongfully or illegally prevented from doing so, may take recourse to any one of the remedies provided under the above sections, and may request the land Tribunal to defer consideration of his application till the possession of the land is restored to him. If he recovers possession in accordance with law, he may then ask the Tribunal to proceed with his application on the merits. When possession is so recovered, the Tribunal has to proceed on the basis that the tenant must be deemed to have been personally cultivating the land from the date of his dispossession till the date of restoration of possession. This clarification may, in our opinion be sufficient to safeguard the interests of such tenants. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .