JUDGMENT CHAINANI C. J.-The petitioner was the holder of an inam land, which had been granted as inam for the performance of services of Kazat. An inquiry was held by the Deputy Collector as to whether this inam was abolished by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inam and Cash Grants Act, 1954. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the land was held in inam for the benefit of a religious institution, viz., Kazat, and that the Act did not apply to it, as sub-s.(2) of s. 1 of the Act excludes from its application inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions. This contention was not accepted by the Deputy Collector. He was of 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 and that the inam land vested in the State with effect from July 1, 1960. This order was confirmed in appeal by the State Government. 2. The Muntakhab shows that the inam had been granted for performing the services of "Kazat". According to Blatts Urdu English Dictionary, "Kazat" means "the functions or office of a Kazi". Some of the functions of a Kazi are officiating at marriages, keeping marriage records, attesting divorce deeds, etc. It is not in dispute that these services 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 where they were required. The grant was not, therefore, to any institution or for the benefit of any institution. It was made to an individual as remuneration for certain services to be rendered to the community. The fact that the services to be performed were of a religious nature would not make it a grant for the benefit of a religious institution. The inam was, therefore, a community service inam, as held by the Deputy Collector. 3. This view is in accordance with that taken by us in Shaikh Omar v. Mohammadji1. 4. The orders passed by the Deputy Collector and by the State Government are consequently correct. 5. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.