LAND LEGISLATION IN KARNATAKA 47 tenancy legislation. It was argued that a large number of holdings were now being held in the names of widows, minors, unmarried daughters and mentally or physically disabled members of a family. As such, a strong case was built up for radical reforms aimed at removing such exemptions. All exemptions except that for soldiers and seamen were abolished. In removing these exemptions the 1974 Act also removed the exemptions for the small holders. As a result a small holder who did not have the financial ability to cultivate himself was now to lose his land. This was particularly important in the northern and southern regions where there did exist the possibility of small holders leasing out their land when they were financially unable to cultivate themselves. To further support the interests of the tenants, the right to resumption of tenanted land was abolished6 except in the case of soldiers and seamen. This marked a major break from the 1961 legislation when any one could resume the cultivation of his land as long as he or a member of his family personally supervised such cultivation. In fact that land could also be resumed even for industrial purposes. By the original Act, a tenant was entitled to a part of the land, except in cases where the landlord was a small holder. By the Amendment to the Act, however, small holders were not allowed to resume cultivation even if their tenants were themselves large holders. While in the stated attempt to tighten up the legislation all exemptions to small holders were removed, 'there was at the same time no attempt to curb the rights of the dominant class tenants. The 1974 Act did not touch the earlier clause that an owner of land was also entitled to claim more land as a tenant. It retained the original words that if a tenant "holds and cultivates personally as an owner of any land the area of which is less the ceiling area, he shall be entitled to be registered an occupant to the extent of such area as will be sufficient to make up his holdings to the extent of a ceiling area".7 When, as we shall see later, we recognise that the ceiling area is by no means restrictive, the full implications of the retention of such a clause become obvious. The dominant class tenants of southern and northern Karnataka do seem to have had a very favourable legislation. The dominant class tenants were not only allowed the same right as the poor tenants in the matter of the price to be paid for the land but they even had a distinct advantage. The Land Reforms Act in Karnataka did not, strictly speaking, grant land to the tenants. All that the written law did was to grant the tenant the right to purchase the land at a predetermined fixed price. This price in the case of A, B and C class lands was fixed at 15 times the net annual income and in the case of D class land it was 20 times the net annual income.8 The net annual income was also quite simply, since 1974, 10 times the aggregate of the land revenue and the water rate.9 The state government was to be merely a holding agency collecting