K KATHADRU Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No.1146/68(IAB). This appeal was heard along with another appeal Appeal No.1296/63(IAB) and both of them were disposed of by a common order as they related to claims in respect of one and the same land. The petitioner was the appellant in Appeal No.1146/68 (IAB). The other appeal wa,s by the 3rd respondent herein. Since the 3rd respondent has not been able to challenge the order made in his appeal, the order in Appeal No. 1296/68(IAB) will stand in so far as the 3rd respondent herein is concerned. The order in this Writ Petition is confined to the order made in Appeal No. 1146/68(IAB).

(2.) The material facts are these: Tyakalahalli village Doddaballapur Taluk, was formerly an inam village. The said village vested in the Government by virtue of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Consequent upon such abolition, the Inamdar one Dinshaw and the 3rd respondent herein preferred claims in respect of certain survey numbers comprised in the said village. It would appear that the Inamdar died subsequently leaving behind him a Will under which the three petitioners herein had been named as executors. The said executors came on record and prosecuted the claim of the Inamdar through a Power of Attorney Holder by name Fatakia. The special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, made an order registering certain items of the lands claimed under Sec.9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. He, however, refused registration with regard to S.No.10. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners appealed to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 1146/ 68 (IAB) . The said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners were incompetent "to prosecute the appeal as legal representatives of the deceased Dinshaw. After coming to the said conclusion, strangely enough, the Tribunal not only dismissed the appeal of the petitioners but also cancelled the registration made by the Special Deputy Commissioner in regard to the other lands. As a consequence of such cancellation, the Tribunal directed further that all these lands must be resumed to Government. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, two contentions have been urged. They are: (1) that the petitioners, being executors of the estata of the Inamdar, were entitled to prosecute the petition as his legal' representatives; and (2) that the Tribunal, being the appellate authority, was not competent to interfere with the order of grant made in regard to certain other lands, when the same had not been put in issue before it.