UTAMRAO V1THALACHARYA ASTHAPUTRE Vs. BHIMA MAYAPPA KONKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions could be disposed of by a common order as they raise common questions of law. W.P. No. 2142 is by the holder of the quandom Inam and W.P. No. 2148 is by the alienee from such Insmdar. By these petitions, the petitioners have principally challenged the order made by the Deputy Commissonerr Belgaum in No RB/WTA/22I69 dated 31-3-1970 and the one made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 870 and 1386/ 70 (M.L.R.) The material facts are as follows S. Nos. 294, 295 and 319 are situate in Hulagabali village, formerly in Jamkhandi Taluk and now in Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. The said lands are governed by the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (Bombay Act 22 of 1955). When the inams stood abolished by virtue of the said Act, respondents 2 to 4 in W.P, 2148/71 herein applied for regrant of the lands on the ground that they were tenants. Similarly, the petitioners and respondent-1 also applied for grant of occupancy right in the said lands. There is some dispute, however, as to the payment of occupancy price as required by the Statute (Act 22 of 1955), and it is the contention of the respondents 2 to 4 that the petitioner had not paid occupancy price in time. I am not -at present concerned with the question of such non-payment of occupancy price in time It is a matter which has to be examined by the, Authorities when the matlers stand remitted, as I propose to do.

(2.) The Assistant Commissioner to whom such applications were made, granted the lands in favour of respondents 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners in WP. 2148(71 alone appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who rejected the appeal as not maintainable. Thereupon, instead of taking the matter in appeal to the Divisinal Commissioner as enjoined by the, Bombay Land Revenue Code, they appealed to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals. The Tribunal, on a joint submission made on behalf of the appellants themselves, held that such appeals were not maintainable. Hence these petitions. Before me, on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the ppeals were competent and the concession made before the Tribunal was on the basis of a mistake of law. It is therefore now sought to be made out that such appeals were competent.

(3.) On behalf of the contesting respondents, it is contended that in view of the concession made by the petitioner before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, it was not a matter in which this Court could interfere under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Further it is urged that even on the assumption that the Bombay Land Revenue Code was applicable as contended for the petitioner, then also the appeals before the Tribunal would not be maintainable. Lastly, it was contended that haying allowed the order of the Deputy Commissioner to stand as it was without expressly appealing against it, the petitioners in any event would be concluded by that order. There were some other contentions which I shall refer at the appropriate place.