B K NARASINGA RAO Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order made by the Divisional Commissioner of Mysore (hereinafter referred tp as Commissioner) in INA. PR 101-0-10645/69-70, on 12-1-1971. By that order the Commissioner held that the 'Area' comprised in the inam village Yengayyana Kere Mole (hereinafter referred to as 'Y.K.Mole') was part of the inam village of Mellahalli, the inam pertaining to which stood abolished by a notification dt.13-1-1959 issued pursuant to S.1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Aboition Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Inams Act'). The order came to be made pursuant to the power vested in the Commissioner by virtue of S.27A of the Inams Act. S.27A of the Inams Act was introduced with retrospective effect from the date of the Inams Act, by the Mysore Inams' Abortion Laws (Amendment) Act of 1959. It is convenient to set out that Section at this stage. It reads;

(2.) Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to a few facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner, along with some others, was the major 'Vrittidar' of the inam village of Melahalli situated in Yelandur Taluk. The said village was notified under the Inams Act as stated earlier. Accordingly, claims were preferred by the inamdars, including the petitioner, and other persons interested in the lands comprised therein for registration of occupancy and other rights as provided under the various provisions of the Act, before the Special Deputy Commissioner constituted for the purpose.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the 'dhakla' village of Y.K.Mole was not part of Jodi Mellahalli and that it was an independent village and, therefore, in the absence of a Notification under Section 1 (4) of the Inams Act specially naming the said village, the Special Deputy Commissioner could not exercise jurisdiction over the said village (Y.K.Mole) under that Act. The 'In charge' Special Deputy Commissioner after enquiring into this objection, upheld this contention by his order dated 28-8-1959.