SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) SRI. S. Udayashankar, learned High Court government Pleader, has entered appearance for respondents 2 to 5. As this petition can be disposed of on a short point it is heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated Nil bearing No. Dis. CLW II 163/82-83 passed by the Deputy Commissioner D. K. Mangalore, and 28th of March 1988 passed by the ka'rnataka appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in appeal No. 432 of 1983 (L. R.) Annexure-C and D respectively. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a sister of respondent no. 1. The first- respondent obtained a decree for partition and separate possession of a share in O. S. No. 62 of 1977 dated 31-7-1980 from the court of Civil Judge, udupi, Dakshina Kannada. There was an appeal against the aforesaid decree and cross objections preferred before the District judge, Dakshina Kannada, in r. A. No. 13/1980. In the appeal, the learned district Judge modified the decree in the following terms:"for the reasons aforesaid, the findings recorded by the lower Court on Issue Nos. 5 and 6 and order regarding the costs are hereby set aside, and the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff is allowed with costs. The cross-objections filed by the defendant-respondent Kalyani are hereby dismissed. ( 4 ) ISSUES 5 and 6 raised in the suit were as follows:"5. Where the 1st defendant proves that she has effected any and if so, what improvements on the plaint 'a' schedule properties?6. Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to any equity in the event of a partition?"the trial Court answered both the issues in the affirmative. However, in the appeal, the learned District Judge, reversed those findings and answered them in the negative and held that the trial Court was not justified in granting equitable relief to the first defendant. ( 5 ) AS the aforesaid decree related to the agricultural lands assessed to revenue, it was sent to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting partition in terms of the decree of the trial Court as modified by the appellate court. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Director of Land Records, kundapur, to conduct survey and measurement of the lands and put up the partition proposal. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Director of Land Records, kundapur, to conduct survey and measurement of the lands and put up the partition proposal. Accordingly, the Assistant director of Land Records, Kundapur, surveyed and measured the lands and put up the partition proposal. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 18-7-1983 (Annexure-C) accepted the partition proposal put up by the Assistant Director of Land records. The Tribunal by the impuguned order (Annexure-D) no doubt dismissed the appeal; but it further held that the allotment of the share as directed by the Deputy commissioner was upheld in respect of agricultural lands only, and the farm house situated in one of the lands i. e. Sy. No. 74/7b2 was quite out of the partition effected by the deputy Commissioner in as much as the partition of the farm house was to be effected by the Civil Court only. ( 6 ) IT is not possible to sustain both the orders. As far as the order of the Deputy commissioner is concerned it is not a speaking order. There is nothing to show that the deputy Commissioner has applied his mind to the facts of the case and examined the feasibility of accepting the partition proposal put up by the Assistant Director of Land records. He is required to effect the partition and give his reasons for accepting the partition proposal put up by the Assistant director of Land Records. ( 7 ) SECTION 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:"54. Partition of estate or separation of share : Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares, of such estates. "it is open to the Deputy Commissioner to effect himself the partition with the assistance of the officials of the Survey and Settlement department, wherever there is a survey and measurement of the land is involved for the purpose of partition or depute any of his gazetted Subordinates to effect partition. "it is open to the Deputy Commissioner to effect himself the partition with the assistance of the officials of the Survey and Settlement department, wherever there is a survey and measurement of the land is involved for the purpose of partition or depute any of his gazetted Subordinates to effect partition. In the event he deputes any of his Gazetted subordinates for effecting partition such a deputee is also entitled to take the assistance of the officials of the Survey and Settlement department wherever such work is involved for effecting partition. Such a deputee with due notice to the parties has to prepare and submit his report containing the partition proposals to the Deputy Commissioner, who after hearing both sides has to accept or reject the same or modify the same in the light of the contentions urged before him. In the instant case, the order does not contain any such reason. The Deputy Commissioner appears to have proceeded on the basis that report submitted by the Assistant Director of land Records is final and binding upon him. Over and above, there is no reason contained in the order and thus the order is not a speaking order. ( 8 ) AS far as the order of the Tribunal is concerned, it has proceeded on the basis that the farm house is beyond the purview of section 54 of CPC and the division of it has to be effected only by the Civil Court. There is a farm house in one of the lands bearing sy. No. 74/7b2. The assumption of the tribunal that a farm house is beyond the purview of Section 54 of the C. P. Code, and it is the Civil Court that has to effect partition because the area covered by a farm house ceases to be an agricultural land, is not correct. Farm house is a part of an agricultural land only. The assumption of the tribunal that a farm house is beyond the purview of Section 54 of the C. P. Code, and it is the Civil Court that has to effect partition because the area covered by a farm house ceases to be an agricultural land, is not correct. Farm house is a part of an agricultural land only. Even Section 95 (1) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act 1964 (For short "the Act") provides that "subject to any law for the time being in force regarding erection of buildings or construction of wells or tanks, an occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents or other legal representatives, to erect farm buildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any other improvements thereon for the better cultivation of the land or its more convenient use for the purpose aforesaid. Sub-section (2) which provides for seeking permission for diverting agricultural land to any other purpose states that if any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agricultural wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose, he shall apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner, who may subject to the provisions of Section 95 and the rules made under the Act, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit. Thus, a reading of sub-section (l) and (2) of Section 95 of the Act makes it clear that for the purpose of construction of a farm house it is not necessary to seek permission to divert agricultural land for any other purpose because a farm house is constructed for the purpose of facilitating better cultivation of the land. A farm house is a part and parcel of agricultural land. The area covered by a farm house does not cease to be an agricultural land. In Bangalore Water Supply and sewerage Board v Kantha Chandra (I. L. R. 1987 Karnataka 1617) this Court has held:-"no permission under Section 95 of the act is required to be obtained for making improvements in the agricultural land for better cultivation of it or its more convenient use for the purpose of agriculture. Of course construction of farm house, tanks, wells etc. for better cultivation, will have to be made in accordance with other laws if any, that govern them". Of course construction of farm house, tanks, wells etc. for better cultivation, will have to be made in accordance with other laws if any, that govern them". Thus it is clear that a farm house constructed on agricultural land does not take away such land from the purview of an agricultural land. The fact that building permission is required to be obtained for the purpose of construction of a farm house on the agricultural land, does not result in conversion of agricultural land for some other purpose when the law itself provides that no conversion is necessary in case a farm house is constructed for the purpose of better cultivation. That being so, the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the farm house is a non-agricultural land and therefore the division of it has to be effected by the Civil Court, and not under section 54 of the C. P. Code. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated Nil in No. DIS CLW II CR 163/82-83 c2 passed by respondent No. 2 and 28-3-1988 in Appeal NO. 432/88 LR passed by respondent no. 8 produced as Annexures-C and D are hereby quashed. The matter now stands remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore district, Mangalore, to effect partition either himself or by deputing any of his gazetted Subordinates in which event he has to ultimately approve the same in terms of the preliminary decree and in the light of the observations made in this order. As the matter is very old one, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to complete the partition by metes and bounds within four months from the date of receipt of the records. ( 10 ) TO avoid further delay in service of notice on the parties, the petitioner and the first respondent are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore, on 2nd of August, 1988. No notice need be sent to the parties by the deputy Commissioner. ( 11 ) THE Registry is directed to despatch a copy of this Order to the Tribunal and to the deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore, well in advance. ( 12 ) SRI S. Udayashankar, learned Government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 in six weeks. --- *** --- .