Commentary for Kiddushin 73:14

To prove that R. Elazar is more stringent than the first opinion, and holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere, the Talmud cites a statement made by Abaye. Abaye said that R. Yishmael disagrees with R. Elazar. R. Yishmael holds that wherever “settlement” is stated it means that the mitzvah is obligatory in the land, after Israel has conquered it and settled it. R. Yishmael is therefore lenient—he would rule that the prohibition of new produce is practiced only in the land. If R. Elazar disagrees, that means that he holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere.
Within the baraita, R. Akiva argues that “settlement” is not a sign that the mitzvah is observed only in the land. After all, in Leviticus 23:3, the word is used in reference to Shabbat, and Shabbat is observed everywhere. R. Yishmael seems to think that Shabbat is an exception to the rule because it can be derived through a kal vehomer.
In any case, this proves that R. Elazar holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere. The first opinion holds that it is observed only in the land.