Case: State of Mysore Vs. P.T. Muniswamy Gowda &amp; Others

The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. Kolar Circle, determined the compensation under Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 20,(1) on October 28, 1963 describing the denomination as draft proposal compensation. The Special Tehsildar had been directed to inspect the village and enquire from the people the income from the inam. We are informed that the result at his enquiry was embodied in what is described as Mahazar. This draft compensation roll was served on the inamdars in November, 1963 and objections were preferred in December. 1963 by P. T. Muniswamy Gowda on behalf of himself and his brother (respondents in this Court) against the draft data of compensation. Thereafter the inamdars made statements of their claim to compensation which were recorded under Section 23 on January 10, 1964. The Special Deputy Commissioner by his award dated January. 13, 1964 determined the income which was lower than the Mahazar estimate and also than that contained in the draft of the Special Tahsildar. The following table would give us the picture of the itemwise claim made by the inamdars, the Mahazar estimate, the proposal of the Special Tahsildar and the amount finally determined by the Special Deputy Commissioner:ItemsClaimMahazar estimate of incomeProposal of the Special TahsildarAward by Deputy Commr.Rs.Rs.Rs.Rs.1. Income from Bande (6Sale of jungleSale of black Jalli and white. Tandadi andHonge and Alemanenil9. Beedi. Sand inThe inamdars, feeling dissatisfied with the final award, preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court came to the conduction that there was no cogent ground for reducing the amount claimed by the inamdars and by the impugned judgment enhanced the compensation from Rs. 31,400/It may be recalled that under Section 17 (1) (v) the compensation to be awarded is to be equal to ten times the average net annual income determined according to the provisions of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
At this stage it would be relevant to point out that under Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed by the Government of Mysore under Section 38 of the Act where the particulars necessary to compute the average net income under Clause (v) of(1) if Section 17 are not available shall be the average net annual income where the particulars are not available, or where the particulars appear in material respect to be incorrect, the computation of the average net annual income under Clause (v) of(1) of Section 17 is required to be made after local enquiry and on the basis of the annual income derived from similar lands situated in the samesubmission appears to be misconceived. The High Court was fully alive to the Mahazar report as is clear from the following observation in its judgment:"The Deputy Commissioner actually visited the village for a local enquiry in addition to furnishing himself with information in the shape of Mahazars prepared in the locality as well as a report by the local Tahsildar. He found that the quarry was a huge one and was being worked in four or five places even during his visit. He was also quite satisfied about the fact that the jodidars were deriving a reasonably substantial income from the other items like fuel, jalli tamarind trees and grazingcontention is equally devoid of merit. Not only was this contention not raised in the High Court, there being no reference to it in the judgment under appeal, there is also ample a proof of the vouchers on the record. We find from the record that P. T. Muniswamy Gowda, the objecting inamdar, had actually appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, himself on January 10, 1964 and stated on oath ascompensation now awarded to our village is very low. The average annual income of this village was Rs.in this behalf we have produced vouchers at the time of on enquiry by thethe enquiry under this Act does not seem to us to be governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act which apply to judicial proceedings in or before a Court. The Special Deputy Commissioner or the Special Tahsildar holding enquiries under the Inam Abolitian Act can by no means be described judicial proceedings in or before a Court and indeed Shri Dholakia rightly did not contend to the contrary. Now, if the technical provisions of the mode of proof as provided by the Indian Evidence Act are inapplicable then the criticism levelled by the appellant cannot possibly have any merit. Needless to add that no objection to the made of proof of the vouchers was ever before raised in these proceedings. This contention must, therefore, bepassage discloses the final reasoning on which the High Court allowed the appeal. The appellants learned counsel was unable to point out any error in this reasoning. From the record to which our attention has been drawn we are satisfied that the High Court was fully justified in enhancing the claim of the inamdars and it is not possible to disagree with its conclusions