BASLINGAPPAGOUDA SHIVLINGAPPAGOUDA Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued for a declaration against the Secretary of State and one Sanava kom Shiddangowda, that they, and not Sanava, were the Watandars of Nagwand Patilki watan, and for a permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 1 and. 2 from recovering from plaintiffs more than assessment or judi payable on watan lands and for costs of the suit.

(2.) It is stated in the plaint that prior to 1812 four persons of Defendant No. 2's family had owned half the Patilki watan of the village of Nagwand. But they left Nagwand for good and began to live in Mysore territory. Their watan lands remained uncultivated and thus lay fallow. Judi to the then Government remained unpaid by them. In these circumstances, the then Government with a view to realize the judi due to it upon those lands, granted the Patilki watan to one Mudkangowda, the ancestor of the present plaintiffs, hereditarily at a reduced rate of judi for seven years. This Mudkangowda represented to the then Government that the original house of the Patilki watan was situated near Mahars houses and he being a Lingayat could not live in it.

(3.) Upon this the Government were pleased to grant, in lieu of the house, another house and open space to Mudkangowda, and also granted a Kowlnama for lands, i.e., deed of grant in 1812, in favour of Mudkangowda. So, by the Kowlnama of 1812, the family of the present plaintiffs acquired half the Gowdki watan of Nagwand village, and similarly the family of Defendant No. 2 ceased to be Watandars of the same watan. Since then the plaintiff's family, as Watandars of the Nagwand Gowdki watan, had been in possession and enjoyment of the Patilki watan house and Patilki watan lands R. Survey Nos. 94 and 95 of Nagwand village up till now. In 1907, the present Defendant No. 2 moved the revenue authorities to restore these watan lands to her under the Watan Act, but ultimately the Prant Officer rejected her application by an order, dated September 19, 1907. In 1919, the present Defendant No. 2 again moved the revenue authorities, and finally the Commissioner S.D. passed, on May 17, 1921, an order that he did not consider it necessary to cancel the Prant Officer's order, dated September 19, 1907.