C KCHANDRASEKHARIAH AND Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three lands bearing survey Nos. 43, 69 and 78 situate in the inam village of Itkalapura in Bangalore District which vested in the Government under the provisions of the , 1954 form the subject-matter of this writ petition. After the inam village vested in the Government under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the two petitioners who were the inamdars of that village made an application to the Deputy Commissioner functioning under the Act, under Section 9, for an order that they should be registered as the occupants of those three lands. A Tahsildar made a report to the Deputy Commissioner in the matter under Rule 7 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Rules, 1956, and, on the basis of that report, the Deputy Commissioner declined to register the petitioners as the occupants of those lands, but instead came to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent was a quasi-permanent tenant of two of those lands, and, a tenant of the third for the purposes of Section 9-A of the Act. From that decision of the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal was preferred to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal under Section 28 of the Act and that appeal was dismissed.

(2.) In this writ petition which is directed against those orders made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, many submissions have been made before us. The first of them is that there has been no proper determination of the claim made by the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner who did not, according to the petitioners, make an examination of the nature and history of the lands claimed by the petitioners. The second is that the Deputy Commissioner did not set out the reasons for the determination he made that the petitioner's claim cannot succeed. The third is that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal misread the evidence recorded in the case and misunderstood the law.

(3.) The claim made by the petitioners in the case for an order that they should be registered as the occupants of the lands was made under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. That section vested in every inamdar the right to be registered as an occupant of all lands other than those enumerated in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of that section. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to examine the history and the nature of the land in respect of which a claim is made under any of the 7 sections referred to therein including Section 9, and, the provision under which the Tahsildar made an enquiry into the application presented by the petitioners was Rule 7 of the Rules. It should be mention- ed here that respondent 3 in his turn made a claim that he was a quasi-permanent tenant of all the three lands and therefore entitled to be registered as such, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Although the Deputy Commissioner did not find that respondent 3 was a quasi-permanent tenant of survey No. 43, he came to the conclusion that he was a quasi-permanent tenant of survey Nos. 68 and 79 and a tenant of S. No. 43 and therefore entitled to be registered as such respectively, under the provisions of Sections 6 and 9-A of the Act. The relevant portions of Rule 7 under which the Tahsildar made a report in this case on which the Deputy Commissioner acted, reads: