SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order in W. P. No. 5642 of 1975 dated 10 11 1975, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. He filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore confirming the order of the special Deputy Commissioner for Inams abolition, Bangalore, rejecting his claim for registration of a plot of land measuring 94 x 66 feet forming a part of Sy. No. 18 of Hanumanthapura Village, which subsequently got included in the Corporation area of Bangalore City and became part of Gandhinagar extension. The claim was made under S. 12 of the mysore (Religious and Charitable) inams Abolition Act, 1955. It was common ground that the land had been taken for the purpose of carrying on business in fuel and charcoal depot in the year 1943 on a monthly rent of Rs. 8 and conversion of the land into non-agricultural purposes was not void or illegal under any law at the time of such conversion. The lease is evidenced by a document dated 28 10-1943, (Ext. 'd') a copy of which was annexed to the writ petition. The contention of the appellant was that he was a holder of the land and entitled to keep the land for himself. The Special Deputy Commissioner, before whom the claim was made, rejected it on the ground that the land was wholly non-agricultural land and the claim of the petitioner was untenable. Virtually on the same ground the Revenue Appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Special Deputy commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore. In the writ petition it was urged that the reasoning of the Revenue Appellate tribunal as well as the Special Deputy commissioner, for rejecting the claim, was untenable. It is apparent that the learned Single Judge did not uphold the order on that reasoning but considered the other arguments put forth in support of the claim and rejecting the contentions, dismissed the Writ Petition. The main argument of Sri Gundappa, learned counsel for the Appellant, is that the interpretation sought to be placed on s. 12 of the Act, and the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge are not correct. S. 12 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act is as follows :-"right to agricultural land used for non-agricultural purposes :- 'where any land used for agricultural purposes has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force at the time. "the expression 'holder' has not been defined in this Act. S. 2 (1) of the Act, provides, "in this Act unless there is any thing repugnant in the subject or context -"all words and expressions defined in the Land Revenue Code shall have the same respective meanings as in that code with the modifications, made by the Act. "the expression 'holder' had been defined under Section 3 (10) of the Mysore land Revenue Code, 1888. The learned judge referred to that sub-section and also to sub-section (9) and'came to the conclusion that the appellant would not come within the meaning of the expression 'holder' mentioned in Section 12 of the act. Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Sections of the Mysore Land Revenue Code are as follows:- (9) "to hold land" means to be legally invested with a right to the possession and enjoyment or disposal of such land, either immediate or at the termination of tenancies legally subsisting". (10) "holder" or "land holder" signifies the person in whom, a right to hold land is vested, whether solely on his own account or wholly or partly in trust for another person, or for a class of persons or for the public. It includes a mortgagee vested with a right to possession. " the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is -, that he is a holder as defined under sub-section (10) and for interpreting it i nvoking of the definition under Sub-section (9) was not justified. His argument is that the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document