STATE OF MYSORE Vs. MUKAHAO NARASINGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The State has filed this writ petition praying for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in Pet. No.227 1966 and Case No.2940 of 1965 on the file of the then Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (to be hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), and quashing the order dt.8-11-1967 passed thereon by the Tribunal.

(2.) This matter arises out of the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Jagirs Abolition Act) under which the appointed date was 1-8-54. The necessary facts are that Respt.1 was a Jagirdar under the Jagirs Abolition Act. The jagir village held by him was a 'proprietary jagir village under the Jagirs Abolition Act. The lands in question are grazing lands where grass is naturally grown, and situated in this village. They were, on the appointed date, in actual possession of Respt.l as provided in S.5(1) (b) oj the Jagirs Abolition Act. Respt.l's name came to be entered as an 'occupant' under the Jagirs Abolition Act, in the record of rights Ceertain objections were raised by certain members of the public in regard to these entries, and demands were made to the concerned authorities in the Revenue Dept. for sanction of certain areas in the lands in question to people belonging to backward classes as sites for construction of houses. An enquiry under S.37 of the Bombay Land "Revenue Code (to be-hereinafter referred to as the Code) was held. All the Revenue Authoiities, including the Divl. Cornmr., Bel gaum, concerned with the enquiry, held that the lands in question vested in the Government under S.8 of the Jagirs Abolition Act and Respt 1 was not entitled to occupancy rights and, therefore, could net be recognised as occupant. Respt 1 instituted proceedings before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided m favour of Respt 1. This is the order that is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The records make it clear that the following facts are found either undisputed or established. (1) the village in question is a proprietary jagir village; (2) the lands in question are grazing lands where grass grows naturally; and (3) the said lands were, on the appointed date, in actual possession of Respt.1 and Respt.1 was securing some income from these lands by sale of the naturally grown grass etc. The questions that have arisen foir determination are: (1) whether in view of. S.5(1) (b) of the Jagirs Abolition Act, Respt.l is entitled to occupancy rights, or (2) whether in view of S 8 pf the Jagirs Abolition Act, , the lands vest in the Government. Section 5(1) (b) of the Jagir Abolition Act reads as follows : "(5) (1) In a proprietary jagir village,- ****** (b) in the case of lands other than Gharkhed land, which is in the actual possession of the Jagirdar or in the possession of a person other than a peimanent holdei holding through or from the Jagirdar, such Jagirdar.....shall be entitled to ail the rights and shall be liable to all the obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or any other law for the time being in force." On reading the above provision independently of the other provisions in the Jagirs Abolition Act, it appears tnat Respondent 1 would be entitled to be recognised as an occupant, in regard to the lands in question, under the Code.