RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is a society known as the ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society limited at Vyalikaval, Bangalore. The main object of the society as disclosed in the averments of the writ petition is to acquire lands for formation of township in the outskirts of Bangalore by allotting sites to its members. The Society had in all 2315 members as on 31-1-1981. It is stated that the petitioner purchased on extent of 276 acres 8 guntas of land in Nayanadanahalli, kenchanahalli, Pantharapalya, Halagevodera- halli villages, Kengeri, Bangalore South Taluk. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the notification issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district, Bangalore, as per Annexure-C on 30th/ 1 May/6 1978 and also the order made by the karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, respondent-2 herein, as per Annexure-D in appeal. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- 33 acres 7 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 51/3 of Halagevaderahalli came to be declared as having been vested in the State government in exercise of the powers under sections 79-B (3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (the Act for short) by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said notification, the matter was taken up in appeal before respondent-2 appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 279 of 1978. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-5-1981 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE undisputed facts as disclosed from the writ petition are that admittedly the petitioner-society is not an agriculturist nor does it deal with agricultural operations. On the other hand, the petitioner is a purchaser of the land in question intending to form lay-out and to sell sites for purposes of building residential houses. This is the main object of the Society to which i have already referred to. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that before the impugned notification came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per annexure-C, the petitioner was not heard and therefore there is violation of the principles of natural justice. This is the main object of the Society to which i have already referred to. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that before the impugned notification came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per annexure-C, the petitioner was not heard and therefore there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Another ground is that by virtue of Section 95 (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964 (the Act of 1964 for short) permission was deemed to have been granted as the Deputy commissioner failed to inform his decision to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of application. These are the two grounds urged in the appeal which came to be reiterated in the writ petition also. ( 6 ) WITH a view to examine the correctness of the submission made, it is better to extract- the provisions of Section 79-B of the Act. It reads:"79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons.- (1) With effect on and from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act,- (a) no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled to hold land; and (b) it shall not be lawful for, (i) an educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, other than an institution or society or trust referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 63, capable of holding property; (ii) a company; (iii) an association or other body of individuals not being a joint family, whether incorporated or not; or (iv) a co-operative society other than a co-operative farm, to hold any land. (2) Every such institution, society, trust, company, association, body or co-operative society,- (a) which holds lands on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and which is disentitled to hold lands under subsection (1), shall, within ninety days from the said date furnish to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the greater part of such land is situated, a declaration containing the particulars of such lands and such other particulars as may be prescribed; and (b) which acquires such land after the said date shall also furnish a similar declaration within the prescribed period. (3) The Tahsildar shall, on receipt of the declaration under sub-section (2) and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, send a statement containing the prescribed particulars relating to such land to the Deputy commissioner who shall, by notification, declare that such land shall vest in the State government free from all encumbrances and take possession thereof in the. prescribed manner. (4) In respect of the land vesting in the state Government under this section an amount as specified in Section 72 shall be paid. " ( 7 ) BY a persual of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 79-B of the Act, it is made clear that no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled to hold land and therefore the petitioner being a society cannot be said to be an individual holding agricultural land for cultivation muchless is he an agriculturist within the meaning of the "argiculturist" defined under the Act. It is nobody's case. Therefore having regard to the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 79-B, the Deputy Commissioner was right in declaring by the notification, Anncxure-C, that the land in question was an agricultural land; that therefore the petitioner was not entitled to hold such a land and that the land shall vest in the State government free from all encumbrances as provided under Section 79-B (3) of the Act. ( 8 ) THE petitioner is unable to point out whether the impugned notification is one without jurisdiction or the Deputy Commissioner has no locus stand! to pass such an order. Nothing of this kinds is contended in support of the writ petition. Indeed, the Appellate Tribunal answering the contentions raised before it has clearly observed in para-5 as follows:-"5. The appellant has not been able to show how the Notification issued by the Deputy commissioner is not in accordance with law. The Tahsildar has simply forwarded the list of lands furnished by the very appellant. Section 79-B (3) of the Land reforms Act does not contemplate any enquiry by the D. C. and therefore l. iere is no scope for the argument that he has violated any principle of natural justice. It was only the Tahsildar who on receipt of the declaration is expected to make an enquiry obviously to verify the correctness of the declaration. It was only the Tahsildar who on receipt of the declaration is expected to make an enquiry obviously to verify the correctness of the declaration. " ( 9 ) INDEED, this is the answer given by the Appellate Tribunal to meet the first contention that there is violation of the principles of natural justice by the Deputy Commissioner who issued the notification. ( 10 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader who produced the records pointed out that the petitioner was, as a matter of fact, heard by the Deputy Commissioner before the impugned notification came to be issued. To that extent, the contention fails. ( 11 ) THE second contention urged is that having regard to sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Act of 1964, permission was deemed to have been granted for conversion, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, though an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner earlier refusing to permit conversion of the land in question, that order was the subject matter of an appeal in Appeal No. 550 of 1971 and by an order dated 31-1-1972, the Appellate Tribunal parly allowed the appeal, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the case in the light of the observations made therein and in accordance with law. This order of the Tribunal came to be passed in a different context altogether, inasmuch as on a specific contention that the petitioner (appellant in the appeal) was not heard before the impugned notification came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the order made by the Deputy Commissioner was vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, presuming for the purpose of argument that the matter, having been remitted for reconsideration, was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the impugned notification issued under Section 79-B (l) (b) (iv) of the Act would not in any way affect the right of the petitioner, for the case of the petitioner is that when the matter was pending before the deputy Commissioner, the impugned notification could not have been issued. This contention, it seems to me, has no substance, inasmuch as Section 79-B, extracted above, clearly provides consequences to be followed when a person who is not an agriculturist holds a particular piece of land end even the Deputy Commissioner is duty bound to take cognizance of the concept underlined by Section 79-B and to pass appropriate orders. The matter that was pending before him in respect of the very land under Section 95 of the Act has nothing to do with the obligation under which the Deputy Commissioner should act. It is in this context, a specific contention was raised before the Appellate Tribunal that Sy. No. 51/3 of Halagevaderahalli village came to be converted by deeming provision of law under section 95 (5) of the Act. As a matter of fact, dealing with this contention, the Appellate tribunal held in para-6 as follows:-"it is not the case of the appellant that the lands in respect of which Notification is ordered by the Deputy commissioner are not mentioned in the declaration furnished by it. It is not pointed out that Sy. No. 51/3 of Halagevaderahalli had been converted for non-agricultural purposes prior to 1-3-1974. " ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in view of the observations made by the Tribunal, it is clear that as on 1-3-1974 the land in question being an agricultural land, the provisions of Section of 79-B (3) of the Act are attracted and therefore the petitioner had to make a declaration furnishing the details of the land in question enabling the deputy Commissioner to pass orders. Thus, whether the land was converted or not, is not the issue before the Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner. Once the Deputy Commissioner forms an opinion that the provisions of Section 79-B arc attracted in respect of the land in question, then the consequences should automatically follow. Thus, the second contention also docs not merit any consideration at all. I have already given the reason why the element of conversion or non-conversion of the land in question under section 95 (5) of the Act would not arise while exercising powers under Section 79-B of the Act of 1961. Thus, the second contention also docs not merit any consideration at all. I have already given the reason why the element of conversion or non-conversion of the land in question under section 95 (5) of the Act would not arise while exercising powers under Section 79-B of the Act of 1961. In the instant case, the Deputy commissioner was right in exercising his powers as required by law to declare the land in question as having been vested in the State Government on the ground that it being an agricultural land, it has been held by a non-agriculturist. ( 14 ) INDEED, before parting with this case,it is necessary to point out that the Deputy commissioner has clearly stated in his order in the operative portion as follows:-"in respect of the lands vesting in the State government in accordance with this notification, an amount as specified in section 79-B (4) of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 shall be paid to Messrs the Ideal Homes Co-operative Building society Ltd, Bangalore-560 052. " ( 15 ) THEREFORE the Deputy Commissioner was mindful of the right of the petitioner that in the event of a person loosing a land under section 79-B (3), such person would be entitled to compensation as provided under Section 79-B (4) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance against the notification. ( 16 ) NO other contention is urged. ( 17 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .