ORDER 1. Respondent No.3 purchased the property bearing Sy.No.46 situated at Raichur from the mother of the petitioner in the year 1965-66 through registered sale deed. The vendor of the property viz. the petitioner’s mother did not question the sale at any point of time. Thereafter the property was converted for nonagricultural purposes by virtue of the order dated 26.6.1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur. The Respondent No.3 has set up business also in the said property. The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority under Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act for short). The Assistant Commissioner held against the 3rd respondent by the order dated 19.3.2005. As against the said order, the 3rd respondent approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 118(2) of the Act, which came to be allowed by the impugned order. 2. The records reveal that O.S. No. 38 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner and others claiming ownership over the very property against Respondent No.3 and others. The suit came to be dismissed on 23.10.2008. Having failed in his attempt before the Civil Court, the petitioner has approached the Assistant Commissioner under Section 79B of the Act. Section 79B of the Act can be invoked only if the agricultural land is held by a person who is not competent to hold the agricultural land. In the matter on hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the member of the joint family consisting of himself and other members; his family is an agriculturists’ family and has business also; as an agriculturist, Respondent No.3 purchased the property from the mother of the petitioner way back in the year 1965-66; thereafter the land was converted for nonagricultural purposes in the year 1976; till the year 2004, the petitioner did not raise his little finger that the 3rd respondent is not an agriculturist at all. For the first time, the contention is raised by the petitioner in the year 2004 before the Assistant Commissioner that the rd respondent is not an agriculturist at all. Though the petitioner has raised such a contention, nothing is discussed in the order as to whether the 3rd respondent is agriculturist or not. For the first time, the contention is raised by the petitioner in the year 2004 before the Assistant Commissioner that the rd respondent is not an agriculturist at all. Though the petitioner has raised such a contention, nothing is discussed in the order as to whether the 3rd respondent is agriculturist or not. The Assistant Commissioner has merely on the presumption that the property is purchased by the firm has concluded that Section 79B(1)(iii) of the Act is violated. The same cannot be accepted, more particularly when the specific case of the 3rd respondent in the statement of objections before this Court is that the 3rd respondent has purchased the property with due permission from the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur dated 29.7.1965 in File No.TNC/242/6465/1739. The property in question is a joint family property consisting of Respondent No.3, his father and brothers. After the purchase of the said land, the land was converted for nonagricultural purposes in the year 1976 and thereafter Respondent No.3 and his brother started to utilize the full potentiality of the land. Merely because the business is established subsequent to purchase, it cannot be said that Respondent No.3 has violated any law, more particularly Section 79B(1)(iii) of the Act. In view of the same, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for. Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.