84 SOCIAL SCIENTIST phenomenon of status-quo in agrarian society in Karnataka has been explained in two ways: (a) The problem of tenancy was relatively small in Karnataka and so the success of land reforms could have had very little impact on the agrarian class structure;6 (b) The advantages of the tenancy law were reaped by the dominant class tenants* and thus the legislation pre-empted change in rural society.7 Both the above explanations are not convincing because the evaluative studies had concentrated only on the effects of the implementation of the 1974 Act. But the forces which prevented change were operative from 1957 itself when the formulation of the land reforms law was contemplated for the first time in Karnataka with the appointment of the Mysore Tenancy and Agricultural Land Laws Committee (popularly known as Jatti Committee). Hence it is necessary to look at this backdrop of the delay of eight years from 1957 to 1965 in the implementation of the 1961 Land Reforms Act which facilitated the landowners to resume the leased-out land for 'personal cultivation' from their tenants under one pretext or the other. Since this reality was ignored by all the evaluations of land reforms in Karnataka their findings remain questionable. A recent study by the present author has thrown light on the large-scale evictions of tenants in the pre-land reforms period in Karnataka. The study shows that the problem of tenancy was not only significant in Karnataka state but also the potentialities of'agrarian social change were sabotaged by the tactics of power politics and bureaucratic lethargy.8 It has been found by several studies that the two coastal districts of Karnataka had shown different character with a high turn-out of pure tenants*'1' claiming ownership on their leased-in holdings.9 Particularly Dakshina Kannada district witnessed open fights between landowners and tenants, house burning and even in 77.7 per cent of tenant applicants of this district got the benefit of the law by 1987 as the decisions of the Land Tribunals were in their favour.10 Thus one could expect a radical change in the rural scenario of Dakshina Kannada district. But in reality, this did not happen as the resumption of land from the tenants was rampant even in this district during 1950s and 1960s. Thus the apparently tall figures of tenant beneficiaries in Dakshina Kannada district failed to yield desired results. The present paper aims at analysing how and why the implementation of tenancy legislation as a part of land reforms failed * The term dominant class tenants stands for those farmers who are big landowners but have further leased-in land from small and marginal landowners for capitalistic agricultural operations. ** The term pure tenants is used to indicate the tenants who held only leased-in lands without any own holdings.