STATE OF MYSORE Vs. P T MUNISWAMY GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Mysore appeals to this Court with a certificate under Article 13, (1) (a) of the Constitution from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Mysore dated 3/11/1966. THE respondents in this Court are Jodidars (or inamdars) of Janadada Obenahalli village (a personal inam village) in the District of Kolar in Mysore State. In the controversy in this Court we are mainly concerned with the provisions of the Mysore ( Personal and Miscellaneous ) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Mysore Act 1 of 1955 ). We may, therefore, at the outset notice the broad features of the reles made therefore under. This Act was enacted with the object of providing for the abolition of personal inams and certain miscellaneous inams in the State of Mysore except in Bellary District. This Act received the assent of the President of India on 15/03/1955 and it was first published in the Mysore Gazette on 15/03/1955 and it was first published in the Mysore Gazette on 19/03/1955. Sections 1,2,27,38 and 40 came into force immediately and the rest of the Act was to "come into force in all minor inams in unlamented villages on such date as the government may by notification appoint and in any Inam village on such date as the Government may, by notification specify in respect of such Inam village": vide Section 1(4). By virtue of Section 2 (1) (b) the date of vesting in relation to an inam means the date appointed by notification issued under Section 1 (4) to be the date on which the provisions of the Act (other than Sections 1,2,27,38 and 40 ) are to come into force in such inam. Section 2 (1) (e) defines "Inam" to include an inam village and a minor inam. It is not disputed that in respect of the village Janadada Obenahalli the requisite notification dated 13/01/1959 was duly published and the date of vesting in the State as specified there in was 1/02/1959. Consequences from vesting of an inam in the State are contained in Section 3 of the Act . But we are not concerned with all the details contained in this section. It is sufficient for our purposes to point out that, broadly speaking, under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this Section all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar cease and become absolutely vested in the State of Mysore free from all encumbrances under Clause (e) the Inamdar ceases to have any interest in the inam other that the interest expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act, and under Clause (h) the Inamdar and any other person whose rights have vested in the State3 of Mysore under Clause (b) are to be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act. Compensation payable in respect of an inam is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the Act and by reason of Section 16 it is to be determined for the inam as a whole and not separately for each of the interests therein. THE amount of compensation payable in repeat of an inam is provided by Section 17. THE present case is admittedly governed by Clause (v) of sub-section (1). We therefore, need not concern ourselves with the other clauses. Clause (v) provides:

(2.) WE now turn to the facts of this case. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. Kolar Circle, determined the compensation under Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 20, sub-rule (1) on 28/10/1963 describing the denomination as draft proposal compensation. The Special Tehsildar had been directed to inspect the village and enquire from the people the income from the inam. WE are informed that the result at his enquiry was embodied in what is described as Mahazar. This draft compensation roll was served on the inamdars in November, 1963 and objections were preferred in December. 1963 by P. T. Muniswamy Gowda on behalf of himself and his brother (respondents in this Court) against the draft data of compensation. Thereafter the inamdars made statements of their claim to compensation which were recorded under Section 23/01/1964. The Special Deputy Commissioner by his award dated 13/01/1964 determined the income which was lower than the Mahazar estimate and also than that contained in the draft of the Special Tahsildar. The following table would give us the picture of the itemwise claim made by the inamdars, the Mahazar estimate, the proposal of the Special Tahsildar and the amount finally determined by the Special Deputy Commissioner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_553_4_1972Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE counsel then faintly contended that the various vouchers referred to by the High Court in support of the annual income of the inamdars were not proved according to the law of evidence and, therefore, the judgment must be held to be vitiated on account of an error of law. This contention is equally devoid of merit. Not only was this contention not raised in the High Court, there being no reference to it in the judgment under appeal, there is also ample a proof of the vouchers on the record. We find from the record that P. T. Muniswamy Gowda, the objecting inamdar, had actually appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, himself on 10/01/1964 and stated on oath as follows:-