ABDUL WAHED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 16-12-1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in case No. 1976-WTN - App-8 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgement of the Deputy Collector. Land reforms, dated 29-12-1975 was confirmed.

(2.) The lands involved in this petition are Survey Nos. 288 and 293 of village Apparao Peth, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. It is the case of the petitioners that they were cultivating the land in question. Petitioner No. 3. was cultivating land Survey No. 288 and petitioner No. 1 was cultivating land Survey No. 293. Petitioner No. 2 is the son-in-law of petitioner No. 3. Respondent No. 2 was Inamdar of the said lands. After the application of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Inam Abolition Act") the said lands were declared and recorded in the names of petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 1 and occupancy rights was granted to them by the Naib Tahsildar, Kinwat, by order dated 22-12-1964. Respondent No. 2 it appears, had filed on objection petition before the Tahsildar, kinwat on 30-7-1964 challenging the grant of occupancy right in favour of the petitioners. This objection was also rejected. On appeal, the Deputy Collector, Nanded, also rejected the claim of respondent No. 2. It appears that respondent No. 2 had preferred a revision before the commissioner, Aurangabad against the grant of occupancy right to the petitioners in respect of the lands in question. However, the order in favour of the petitioners granting them the occupancy rights of the said lands was not disturbed. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No. 2 filed a regular civil suit bearing No. 14 of 1967 against the petitioners as also respondent No. 1 for recovery of possession of the said lands and for certain another reliefs. It further appears that after summons were served on the defendants, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2. It is the claim of respondent No. 2 that he is Mutawalli of Masjid and ldgah of Kosmat, Taluka Kinwat, and that by virtue of being a Saheb Muntakhab and the existence of Mohal-E-Shart in good condition he is still performing the service of the institution. According to respondent No. 2 the lands of village Apparao Peth and Kosmet were granted to him for the service to the Masjid and ldgah situated at village Kosmat under Muntakhab No. 118/12 Meher 1305 Fasli. According to him, the Muntakhab showed that the grant was on condition as Khidmat, Kazzat. The succession was sanctioned in the name of respondent No. 2 on 29-6-1341 Fasli. It appears that respondent No. 2 having lost the first round of litigation even after going before the Commissioner, Aurangabad, Started a second round of litigation by filling an application before the Commissioner, Aurangabad to register a case and decide the nature of the lands referred to above. Strangely enough, the Commissioner, by letter dated 7-3-1974, over looking all other previous legislation and decisions, directed the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Nanded to register a case and decide the nature of the lands. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform Nanded registered the said application showing respondent No. 2 as the appellant, against respondent No. 1 and the petitioners being shown as other respondents. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded decided the said matter by an order dated 29-12-1975. The matter has been decided supposedly under section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act. The entire reasoning of the Deputy Collector is based on the Muntakhab filed before him. He is under an impression that under section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act, he is called upon to decide the nature of lands even though the same have been the subject matter of previous litigation.

(3.) The Inam Abolition Act abolishes all inams excepts (I) inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions; and (ii) inams held for rendering village services useful to the Government or to the village community including sathsendhi, neeradi and belutha inams (Vide sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Inam Abolition Act). The Deputy collector is obviously labouring under a misapprehension that all inams held in respect of religious institutions are exempted. A plain reading of Clause (1) of sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Inam Abolition Act shows that the inam must be held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious Institutions. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 that the inam held by him is by or for the benefit of any charitable and religious institution. On the contrary, it is his case that the inam is for his benefit, he being Mutwalli of the Masjid and Idgah at Kosmet. This is one aspect of the matter. In fact, the Deputy Collector seems to have been impressed only because the Commissioner, Aurangabad, sent a letter to him to register the case and decide the nature of inam when it was not permissible.