AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 353 wordsChainani, C.J.
(1) The petitioner was the holder of an inam land, which had been granted as Inam for the performances of services of Kazat. An inquiry was held by the Deputy collector as the whether this inam was abolished by the Hyderabad political of Inam and Cash Grant Act 1954. It has Abolished was urged on behalf of he petitioners was in inam Kazat, an institution viz., as sub - section [2] on Cash Act by or for the benefit applications out institutions. This constitutions by the Deputy Commission the opinion that the Kazat is not religious institution but that it is a community service. He therefore held that the inam had been abolished an that the inam land vested in the state with the effect from 1-7-1960. This order was confirmed in appeal by the state government.
(2) The Muntakhab shows that the inam has been granted for performing the services of "Kazat" According to Blatt''s Urdu English dictionary "Kazi" mean "The function or officer of a Kazat" and some of the function of a kazi are officiating at marriages, keeping marriages records attesting divorce deeds, etc. It is not is dispute that these service were not required to be performed in any particular place or in any mosque. Dargha or other institution. They could be performed at any place whereby they are required. The grant was not therefore to any institution or for the benefit of any institution. It was made to an individual as remuneration of the certain service to be rendered to community. The fact to be rendered to community. The fact to service to be performed were of a religious nature would not make it a grant for the benefit of rulings institution. The inam was therefore a community service inam as held by the deputy collector.
(3) This view is in accordance with the taken by the special civil Application No. 1114 of 1964 decided on 9th April 1965.
(4) The orders passed by the Deputy collector any by the state government are consequently correct.
(5) Rule discharged, No other as to costs,.
(6) Rule discharged.