ORDER
Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1.The petitioner-Mutt has challenged the order dated 5-4-1999 passed by respondent 3 in this petition.
2. The petitioner’s Mutt is of an ancient origin established over 600 years ago and has its two temples called, by name of deities Sri Chaturbuja Pattabhirama Devaru and Sri Neelakantheswara Swamy at Holenarasipura, Hassan District.
3. These dieties were endowed with an extent of 4,222 acres 18 guntas of Devadaya Inam Land in several villages in the Districts of Hassan, Mysore and Mandya. Consequent on the coming into force of Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the lands vested in the State Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. Under Section 3(h) read with Sections 19 and 21 of the Act, the Inamdar is entitled to compensation from the Government.
4. Since the Government did not take any action to fix the compensation (Tasdik) allowance, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 5391 of 1984 for a direction to the Government to fix the Tasdik allowance. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30-10-1990 directing the respondents to pass orders fixing the Tasdik allowance within two months from the date of the order. Pursuant to this direction the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 6-1-1992 stating that he has determined the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 11,12,047/- in lieu of the lands belonging to the Mutt having vested in the State Government and called upon the petitioner-Mutt to file objections, if any, to the proposed determination of the Tasdik amount. The Deputy Commissioner has also furnished the details regarding the basis on which the Tasdik amount has been determined by his notice dated 6-1-1992. The petitioner accepted the determination of the proposed Tasdik amount except for a small amount.
5. Though the Tasdik allowance has been determined by the Deputy Commissioner as stated above no formal order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. This inaction has made the petitioner to file the contempt petition in C.C.C. No. 208 of 1992 before this Court. During the pendency of this contempt petition the Deputy Commissioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner has fixed the Tasdik allowance. It appears the determination of the Tasdik amount of Rs. 2,68,740/- is only to avoid the contempt petition filed by the petitioner. Consequent
on the passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of the contempt petition, the contempt petition, came to be disposed of on 15-9-1992 reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said fixation. The petitioner had once again challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in W.P. No. 12623 of 1993 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 17-3-1998 quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner fixing the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 2,68,740/- and directed him to pass the appropriate order within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. As the Deputy Commissioner failed to take any action pursuant to the direction issued in the above said writ petition, the petitioner once again filed a contempt petition in C.C.C. No. 346 of 1999 before this Court. The Deputy Commissioner in order to avoid the contempt if any has once again passed the order determining the Tasdik amount at Rs. 2,68,740/-. This order is under challenge in this petition as third round of litigation.
6. The respondents have not filed any statement of objections.
7. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner having fixed the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 11,12,047/- by way of compensation in respect of the lands vested in Government ought not to have fixed the Tasdik allowance lower than what was proposed, in the absence of any objections by the petitioner-Mutt. He nextly submits that the Tasdik allowance determined by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, he submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in reducing the Tasdik allowance, as the proposed determination is on account of several writ petitions and the contempt petitions filed by the petitioners seeking justice before this Court.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner stating that the Tasdik allowance fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer to certain provisions of the Act.
Section 3(h) of the Act, reads as follows:
“The Inamdar whose rights have vested in the State of Mysore under clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act”.
Sections 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Act read as follows:
“15. The compensation shall be determined for the inam as a whole, and not separately for each of the interest therein.
16. A sum called “the basic annual sum” shall first be determined in respect of the inam.
17. (1) The basic annual sum of an inam shall be the aggregate of the sums specified below, less the deductions specified in Section 18, namely:
(i) the whole of the average net annual income derived by the inamdar during a period of five years immediately preceding the date of vesting from lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Sections 4, 5 and 7.
19. (1) The Government shall pay to the inamdar every year so long as the institution exists as compensation for all the rights of the inamdar vesting in the State of Mysore under this Act (the basic annual sum as a Tasdik allowance).
(2) The sum payable under sub-section (1) may be paid in such form and manner, and at such time or times and in one or more instalments as may be prescribed”.
10. From a reading of the above said sections it is clear that consequent on the vesting of the land belonging to the Mutt in the State Government, the State Government is liable to pay Tasdik allowance to the Inamdar. In the case on hand, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 21 of the Act, has determined the basic annual sum as provided under Section 16 of the Act. Consequent on the determination of the said amount, he issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file objections, if any. Since the petitioner has not objected to the proposed basic annual sum determined by the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have confirmed the said amount and paid the same in the manner as provided under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing the compensation from Rs. 11,12,047/- to Rs. 2,68,740/- is not correct.
11. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner determining the Tasdik amount at Rs. 2,68,740/- on an earlier occasion was quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 12623 of 1993 as it was not in accordance with law and directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh. After the said direction the Deputy Commissioner again restored the earlier order without reason whatsoever. Section 17 of the Act provides for determination of basic annual sum taking into account the average annual net income derived by the Inamdar during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of vesting of the lands. The Deputy Commissioner had not taken as to what was the net annual income derived by the landlord from the lands during the period of five years immediately prior to the date of vesting for the purpose of arriving at the figure of Rs. 2,68,740/-. Further, he has also not assigned any reasons so as to determine the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 2,68,740/-. Therefore, the determination of Tasdik allowance of Rs. 2,68,740/- is arbitrary.
12. The Deputy Commissioner after determination of the Tasdik allowance as per his notice dated 6-1-1992 has furnished the details on which he arrived at the figure of Rs. 11,12,047/-. The total extent of land belonging to the Mutt vested in the State Government was 4,222 acres 18 guntas. The determination of Tasdik allowance as per the clarification issued by the Deputy Commissioner is on the basis of the yield at 227 kgs per acre from the dry land, 1,200 kgs per acre from the wet land and the value of the Bagayat land at Rs. 1,000/- per acre. This is my
opinion cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore, there is no reason to reduce the Tasdik allowance from the amount determined by the Deputy Commissioner by this notice dated 6-1-1992.
13. In the normal course this Court would have directed the Deputy Commissioner to redetermine the Tasdik allowance payable to the Mutt as the determination of the Tasdik allowance by the Deputy Commissioner is not based on any material or evidence. Taking into consideration the history of this case and the number of writ petitions and the contempt petitions filed by the petitioner, I am of the view that even if the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner-Mutt would not get any justice. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the State Government to accept the proposed determination of the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 11,12,047/- by the Deputy Commissioner by his notice dated 6-1-1992 and pass appropriate order and pay the same to the petitioner’s Mutt.
14. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
(1) Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5-4-1999 (Annexure-M) passed by respondent 3 is quashed;
(2) The State Government is directed to confirm the determination of the Tasdik allowance at Rs. 11,12,047/- by passing an appropriate order and pay the same to the petitioner-Mutt within three months from today. If the State Government fails to pay the amount to the petitioner’s Mutt within three months as specified above, the State Government is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said sum of Rs. 11,12,047/- from the date of this order till payment.