The main legal point established is that the applications for conferment of occupancy rights should be considered together and adjudicated on merits, especially in cases where the time for filing applications has been extended by the State Government.

( 1 ) WHEN the case was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the Special deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Mandya District, Mandya that had passed the original order and impugned in the writ petition, had not been impleaded as a party-respondent. Sri M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner had not been impleaded as a party respondent by oversight. He therefore prays for permission to implead the said authority as a party-respondent. I have permitted Sri Rangarao to implead the said authority as respondent No. 4. Accordingly Sri Rangarao has effected the necessary amendments. After the necessary amendments were effected at my request Sri M. R. Suvarna, learned High Court Government pleader, who is present in Court in connection with other cases has taken notice for Respondents 1 and 4. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents 1 and 4 within \5 days from this day. As agreed to by both sides. I have heard this Writ Petition on merits.

( 2 ) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-6-1974 of the Kanataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal no. 89 of 1974 (I A. M.) (Ex. 'b') affirming the order dated 30-1-1973 of the special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Mandya District, Mandya in case No. Mis. INAOR. 296/1970-71 (Ex. 'a') (hereinafter referred to as ' the deputy Commissioner ' ).

( 3 ) SY. No. 145 of Avalavadi Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk was a personal Inam land. Under the provisions of the Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous inams Abolition Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 1954 Act) the i inam tenure of the land was abolished on the provision made for conferment of occupancy rights on certain persons.

( 4 ) SOMETIME before 22-9-1969, respondent No. 3 made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, for conferment of occupancy rights under the 1954 Act. As on 22-9-1 69, there was neither a rival applicant seeking for conferment of occupancy rights over the land, nor any other person objected to the application of respondent No. 3. In that view, after holding an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner on 22-9-1969 allowed the application of Respondent-3 and granted him occupancy rights over the land.

( 5 ) ON 18-12-1970, the petitioner presented an application before the special Deputy Commissioner praying for conferment of occupancy rights. As the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order granting the application of wp. 149/75. respondent-3 as early as on 22-2-1969, the petitioner moved the Special Deputy commissioner to recall his order dated 22-6-1969 and consider his application along with the application made by respondent-3 and pass an appropriate order after holding an enquiry. On 30-1-1973 the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application made by the petitioner and has refused to recall his earlier order dated 22 2-1969 on the ground that he had no power to review. Against the order dated 30-1-1973 of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. 89/74 (I. A. M.) before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which by its order dated 5-6-1974 has dismissed the same and has affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

( 6 ) BEFORE the authorities, the petitioner inter-alia contended that the time for filing applications for conferment of occupancy rights had been extended by Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the 1954 Act and th Rules made thereunder till 26-12-1974 and the application made by him on 18-2-1970 being in time, was entitled to be considered along with the application made by respondent-3. Both the authorities have taken view that in the absence of an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22-9-69 of the Deputy commissioner allowing the application of respondent-3, the question of considering the application made by the petitioner on 18-12-1970 does not arise and that no relief can be granted to him.

( 7 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document