JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 121-a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (act' for short) is filed by the petitioner against the order of the land reforms appellate authority dated 10-8-1989 made in case No. Lra 991 of 1988 in confirming the order of the land tribunal, udupi on the ground that it suffers from illegality and procedural irregularity. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has already beengranted occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos. 9 and 18/1 in lry 76-78. He filed another application for grant of dwelling site under Section 38 of the act. The land tribunal after assessing the evidence has ruled that he is not an agricultural labourer, in view of the fact that he has already been granted occupancy rights under Section 48-a of the act. The land tribunal, is of the view that agricultural tenant cannot be an agricultural labourer to claim dwelling site. The said order of the land tribunal has been confirmed by the appellate authority holding that the petitioner was not a agricultural labourer and he is not entitled for allotment of a dwelling site. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for thepetitioner has strenuously contended that the agricultural tenant is also an agricultural labourer by virtue of Section 2 (2) of the act. Section 2 (2) of the act reads as follows : " "agricultural labourer" means a person whose principal means a livelihood is manual labour on land; (and includes an artisan whose principal means of livelihood is preparation of agricultural implements ). " This definition clause uses the words 'agricultural labourer' denoting a line may be drawn so as to exclude categories like agricultural tenant, obviously not intended to be included. In otherwords it is not and cannot be suggested that in its wide sweep word 'agricultural labourer' is intended to include service however rendered in whatsoever capacity and whatsoever reason. The word agricultural labourer is defined to exclude the agricultural tenant, when it is ascertained from the context of the scheme of the act and the object intended to be served thereby. The word agricultural labourer is defined to exclude the agricultural tenant, when it is ascertained from the context of the scheme of the act and the object intended to be served thereby. ( 4 ) IN commissioner of Gift Tax Madras v N. S. Getty Chettiar ( AIR 1971 SC 2410 ) Hegde, J. (as he then was) observed as under : "an interpretation clause is not meant to prevent the word receiving its ordinary, popular and natural sense whatever that would be properly applicable but to enabll the word as used in the Act, when there is nothing in the context or the subject matter to the contrary to be applied to some things to which it would not ordinarily be applicable. " ( 5 ) IT may also be seen that section2 (19) envisages that the landless person means a person who, holding on land whether as owner or tenant, earns his livelihood principally by manual labour on land and intends to take to the profession oi agriculture. ( 6 ) A reading of these two Provisionswith Section 38 of the Act, abundantly makes it clear that the person who is an agricultural tenant and who has been granted occupancy rights cannot claim to be an agricultural labourer as defined under Section 2 (2) of the act. Main thrust of that provision is that the agricultural labourer is one whose principal means of livelihood is out of manual labour. Both the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was an agricultural tenant and who has been granted occupancy rights under sec. 48-a of the Act, and he is not an agricutural labourer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and as such he is not entitled to claim a dwelling site under Section 38 of the act. ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitionerthat the appellate authority has committed illegality in wrongly interpreting Section 2 (2) is unsustainable in view of the clear Provisions of the Land Reforms Act, which has laid down that it is only a person whose main principal income is out of manual labour on land is agricultural labour. The order of the appellate authority does not suffer either from illegality or any procedural irregularity. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, I do notfind any merit to admit this revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. The order of the appellate authority does not suffer either from illegality or any procedural irregularity. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, I do notfind any merit to admit this revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .