The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Divisional Commissioner to revise orders under S. 27a of the Inams Act, the interpretation of the term 'area' in the context of a separate village, and the retrospective effect of the provisions of S. 27a.

( 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;" 27a. Control by. the Divisional Comissioner-The Divisional commissioner shall, within his jurisdiction have power.- (a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act and in particular to superintend the taking over of inams and to, make due arrangements for the administration thereof; (b) to issue instructions for the guidance of the Deputy commissioner; (c) to cancel or revise any order of the Deputy Commisioner declaring whether a particular area is part of an inam or not. "

( 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.

( 4 ) THE Divisional Commissioner of Mysore Division, purporting to exercise the revisional power vested in him u/s. 217 of the Mysore Land revenue Code of 1888, set aside the order. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by it, approached this Court in WP. 333/1960. This Court quashed the order of the Divisional Commissioner, holding that that Officer could not act under S. 217 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code to interfere with an order made by an authority under the provisions of a Special Act such as the Inams Act. Presumably because of this decision that the Legislature enacted Sec. 27a of the Inams Act, with retrospective effect, with a view to enable a Divisional Commissioner to revise such an order made under the Inams Act.

( 5 ) AFTER the enactment of the said S. 27a, the Commissioner issued notices to parties and after hearing them passed the impugned order. By the said order he held that an 'in charge' Special Deputy Commisioner for inams Abolition was incompetent to decide the question raised before him relative to an issue whether or not Y. K. Mole village was a 'dhakla' or 'majare' village of Jodi Mellahalli and also the further question whether or not the area comprised in Y. K. Mole Village was part and parcel of mellahalli village. After coming to this conclusion and after considering the question of remand and concluding that it was unnecessary to do so, he examined all t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document