BALAKRISHNA, J,, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the Government of Karnataka dated 17-6-1982, a copy of which is annexure-A, holding that 3 villages, namely, Hanchinal, Benakanahalli and inamkop are Watans which are governed by the Bombay Merged Territories miscellaneous Alienation Abolition Act, 1955 and that they are not Jagirs coming under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs) Abolition Act, 1953. ( 2 ) THE point for consideration iswhether these villages are governed by the Bombay Merged Territories miscellaneous Alienation Abolition Act, 1955 or under the Bombay Merged Territories and areas (Jagirs) Abolition Act, 1953. ( 3 ) THE impugned order contains anelaborate discussion of not only the background and historical "details relating to these villages, but also a specific reference to the question whether or not the lands were granted for service or as personal inams. ( 4 ) THE most significant and relevantreference is to the sannad by virtue of which the grantees under the original sannad issued by the Adil Shahi Kings were required to pay Nazarana and that the inams were transferred subject to all the usual rights in consonance with the laws and regulations prevailing at the relevant point of time and further making it obligatory to the transferees to owe loyalty to the King and to irecover and pay nazarana and enjoy the inams for their own benefit and for the benefit of their successors either by male or female inheritance in perpetuity. It is seen from the impugned order that the original Sannad so issued is not quite clear on the point whether the lands were granted for service or as personal inams. In fact, it is found that the Sannad does not specify any stipulation for rendering of service. Based on the order of 1904 made by the ruler, the probability is that the lands were in fact granted for the purpose of rendering service and therefore the Government proceeded to give a finding that the inams are in the nature of service inams. ( 5 ) ON the question whether the 1953act is applicable to these inams, the basis for determination is whether any such service was being rendered on the date of abolition of the inams. The other question is whether the 1955 Act would be applicable to the inams though they had been originally granted for rendering service. ( 5 ) ON the question whether the 1953act is applicable to these inams, the basis for determination is whether any such service was being rendered on the date of abolition of the inams. The other question is whether the 1955 Act would be applicable to the inams though they had been originally granted for rendering service. Support is drawn from the decisions of the erstwhile Mysore High Court in w. P. Nos. 1416, 1560, 2119 and 658 of 1967 in the decision rendered on 16-6-1971 holding that if the alienation is watan then notwithstanding the fact that the watandars were not rendering any service at the time of abolition, the 1955 act alone would apply and not the 1953 act. This Court further held that the same Act applies to watans even if they did not qualify the condition that they were held for service which was beneficial to the ruler for the time being before merger and thereafter had continued to be useful to the State Government even after merger. ( 6 ) BASED on the aboveconsiderations the State Government proceeded to give a finding that the above mentioned villages are Watans and that they are governed by the 1955 Act and not by the 1953 Act. ( 7 ) BUT according to the petitioners,jamkhandi State was an independent state subordinate only to the British crown. The petitioners have gone to the extent of contending that the Deccan states including Jamkhandi State were technically sovereign States, but in a limited sense. After the Indian independence Act was passed in 1947 by the british Parliament, the then Central government issued a notification No. 130-1b dated 25-2-1948 by which the government of Bombay was empowered to pass any order in respect of the merged territory and in respect of some subjects. On 2-3-1948, another order called administration of Deccan States Order, 1948 was passed by the Government of Bombay. Jamkhandi State is one of the Deccan states who have signed what is known as the Instrument of Accession on 19-2-1948 bringing about a merger with the government of India and consequently in March 1948 the Jamkhandi State was merged with the Indian Union and became a part and parcel of the same. Jamkhandi State is one of the Deccan states who have signed what is known as the Instrument of Accession on 19-2-1948 bringing about a merger with the government of India and consequently in March 1948 the Jamkhandi State was merged with the Indian Union and became a part and parcel of the same. In 1949, States merger (Governor's Provinces) Order was passed and according to Clause 4 of the said order, all laws in force in the merged slates or any part therein immediately prior to 1-8-1949 shall continue in force until repealed, modified or amended by the competent Legislature. Thus, jamkhandi State became a part of the Bombay state. The contention of the petitioners is that even though the merger was brought about by an Instrument of accession by agreement between the Jamkhandi state and the Central Government, what in fact is involved is an Act of State. The learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court vide AIR 1964 SC 1043 at 1051. Relying on the said decision, the petitioners are seeking the nullification of the impugned order under annexure-A. ( 8 ) IT is difficult for ma to accept theproposition that the Instrument of accession based on an agreement executed between the ruler of an Indian State and the Central Government is a result of exercise of the power vested under an act of State. An Act of State is only extra territorial in character and there cannot be an Act of State between the state and its own citizen and in the instant case it would not be inappropriate to observe that an Act of State is not contemplated to be intra-territarial in nature in any sense of the term. The context in which the observations were made by the supreme Court does not fit into the pattern of facts of the instant case and the premise which is required to be adopted in order to decide which of the two Acts is applicable is totally different. All that we are concerned with is whether or not these villages are Watans and if so whether they are governed by the 1953 Act or the 1955 act. No material whatever is placed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to reach an inference that the villages are governed by the Bombay merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs) Abolition act, 1953. No material whatever is placed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to reach an inference that the villages are governed by the Bombay merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs) Abolition act, 1953. The villages certainly do not fall within the ambit of the said Act exclusively for the reason that the villages in question are Watans only. The reasoning adopted by the State Government in its impugned order does not, in my opinion, admit any controversy. By investigating into the back-ground of grant of Sannads and Adil Shahi Kings administration in so far as Jamkhandi State is concerned, I do not think that there is any deviation from law. But, on the other hand, adequate and relevant material is gathered for the purpose of adopting the proper legal premise in order to decide the point in issue, it is not possible to subscribe to the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the reference to adil Shahi Kings Nazarana and similar details is misplaced. On the other hand, j am of the view that reference to an Act of State is misconceived. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the following order : the writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 9, The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. Writ Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .