( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of survey nos. 48 to 51, 62, 63 and67 to 71 of nimbekayipura village. Some of these lands areleased and some are mortgaged by the petitioner to the secondrespondent for running a stud-farm known as 'clive stud-farm'. on the advent of the Karnataka land reforms act (hereinafterreferred to as 'the act') in the present form with effect from1-3-1974, the second respondent filed form no. 7 before theland tribunal, however, making it clear in the said form thatthe said lands are being used as stud-farm for breeding, rearingand maintenance of horses and allied purposes referred to inrule 38-a of the Karnataka land reforms Rules (hereinafterreferred to as'the rules'. the petitioner applied to the government to approve thestud-farm under the provisions of the act and the rules. Thegovernment called for a report from the special deputycommissioner. He stated that the stud-farm is in existence since1967 duly registered with royal western India turf club,bombay. He noted that the stud-farm is developed for thepurpose for which it stands and 67 adult horses, 22 immaturehorses and 11 foals are born until 1984. He observed that 84acres of land is less than ceiling limit the stud-farm can hold andit does not have excess land. Since the stud-farm owner is notseeking exemption, the same may be rejected. Approving hisview commissioner, revenue department, has passed theimpugned order annexure-d rejecting petitioner's application. aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended thatsection 107 of the act itself provides for exemption of lands fromapplicability of the act and government has merely to approvethe stud-farm by finding out whether it fulfills the prescribedconditions in rule 38-a of the rules; that when once thegovernment concluded that the stud-farm fulfilled theconditions prescribed under rule 38-a, it had no option but togrant approval under section 107 (1) (v) of the act; that thequestion of who owned the stud-farm being irrelevant thegovernment could not have taken into consideration suchmaterial in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended thatthough the act or the Rules are silent as to who should apply forthe grant of approval under section 107 (1) (v) of the Act, theobjects and scheme of the act would make it clear that it is onlyin the interest of maintaining a stud-farm exemption had beenprovided and thus the state government was justified in takinginto consideration the fact that the petitioner was not interestedin maintaining the stud-farm it was also submitted that therewas ample material on record to show that the petitioner,intended to utilise the land for purposes other than stud-farm bysale for other purposes or otherwise. ( 4 ) SECTION 107 of the act provides for exclusion of certainlands from applicability of the act subject to section 110 andexcept section 8 and among others section 107 (l) (v) of the actprovides that lands are excluded which have been used for suchstud-farms as are in existence on the 24th january, 1971 andapproved by the state government, subject to such Rules as maybe prescribed. Rule 38-a of the Rules provides for conditions forapplicability of section 107 (1) (v) of the act. The conditions arethat the stud-farm should have been in existence as on 24thjanuary, 1971 duly registered with any turf club in India andthe land occupied by the stud-farm should be utilised for thepurpose of such stud-farm like breeding, rearing andmaintenance of horses and allied purposes. The Rules alsoprovide in detail extent of land reserved for paddocks, stablesand for growing fodder with reference to number of horses/foals. in the event that such land is not utilised for the purpose ofstud-farm it shall be surrendered to government subject to theprovisions of the act ( 5 ) OBJECT of section 107 (1) (v) appears to be to preserve andencourage breeding, rearing and maintenance of horses. For thesaid purpose if land is utilised, the provisions of the act aremade inapplicable except section 8 of the act which provides forpayment of rent. However, power is reserved under section 110of the act to withdraw the operation of section 107 of the act ifthe basic policy underlying the act is likely to be defeated andthereby allow the provisions of the act to apply in full force. However, power is reserved under section 110of the act to withdraw the operation of section 107 of the act ifthe basic policy underlying the act is likely to be defeated andthereby allow the provisions of the act to apply in full force. ( 6 ) IN the instant case the state government has recorded afinding that the land in question is used for a stud-farm, theimpugned order specifically notes the existence of the stud-farmprior to 24th january, 1971 and the fact that it is registered withthe turf club. The order also notices that the stud-farm is beingutilised for the purposes of stud-farm for breeding, rearing andmaintaining horses. The order does not indicate that any of thefour conditions laid down in rule 38-a is not fulfilled by thestud-farm. The sole ground upon which the state refuses toaccord approval under section 107 read with rule 38-a is thatthe stud-farm is owned and run by the second respondent andhence the petitioner who is the owner of the land having nointerest in the stud-farm has no locus standi to seek benefit ofsection 107 of the act. ( 7 ) A perusal of section 107 (1) (v) of the act will make it clearthat the act will not be applicable to land used as stud-farm andapproved by government subject to Rules framed in that regard. the government must record its satisfaction of the compliancewith the Rules framed thereof. The exception carved out insection 107 is with reference to the land used as a stud-farmand not with reference to owner either of land or stud-farm. And,the factor of ownership is entirely irrelevant. The conditions tobe satisfied under section 107 (1) (v) of the act are: (i) land used for stud-farm (ii) such stud-farm is in existence as on 24-1-1971 (iii) approved by government subject to rule 38-a. this analysis would show that nature of ownership does notenter into picture at all. In granting the approval under rule38-a, it is open to the government to see whether the land isbeing used for the stud-farm. Even after approval the moment itis discovered that the land is used for any purpose other thanstud-farm provided under rule 38-a of the rules, the exemptionis lost and the government can ask the party concerned tosurrender the land in question, the object of exemption being topromote horse-breeding by maintenance of appropriate stud-farms. Even after approval the moment itis discovered that the land is used for any purpose other thanstud-farm provided under rule 38-a of the rules, the exemptionis lost and the government can ask the party concerned tosurrender the land in question, the object of exemption being topromote horse-breeding by maintenance of appropriate stud-farms. The government can also exercise its power undersection 110 of the Act, that in any given case, if the underlyingpurpose of the act is defeated to take such land out of thepurview of section 107 of the act and apply All such provisions ofthe act as it deems fit. ( 8 ) IN the impugned order the government does not refer tosection 110 or indicate any grounds to exercise powers thereto,nor does it say that there is no compliance with rule 38-a of therules. Hence the impugned order of the government is liable tobe and is quashed. The government has not given a clear findingthat there is compliance or otherwise with rule 38-a of therules. If the finding of the government is that there iscompliance with the rule it must issue approval as contemplatedunder section 107 (1) (v) of the act and hence the impugned ordershall stand quashed and the government is directed to examinethe matter afresh on the basis of the report made by the deputycommissioner and any other material relevant thereto. Thegovernment, shall not reject the claim of the petitioner on theground that he is owner of the land and not of the stud-farm. petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. --- *** --- .