JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---The question for determination in this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a tenant in occupation of agricultural land is entitled to notice before the Collector issues exemption certificate in favour of a Public Trust as contemplated under section 88-B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petition is referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge at the stage of admission as it was felt that the decision of the Single Judge in the case of (Shrimant Jagdesras Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar and others)1, reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 687 holding that notice is not required to be served on the tenant requires reconsideration.

2. The respondent is a Public Trust and claims to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust owns agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 1061 at Village Beneli and Gat No. 1894 at village Kothali in Karvir Division of Kolhapur District. The lands are leased out to the petitioners and the rights of the tenants are regulated by the provisions of the tenancy Act. The trustees instituted Tenancy Application No. 5 of 1977 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kervir Division, Kolhapur for grant of exemption certificate under section 88-B(1)(b) of the Act. The Trustees claim that income accrued from the agricultural lands is Rs. 600/- and the entire income is spent for the object of the Trust. Initially, some of the petitioners were added as party respondents to the application but subsequently their names were delected as the Sub-Divisional Officer felt that it was not necessary to serve notice on the tenants and it is not permissible for the tenants to resist the proceedings as the proceedings are entirely between the Trust and the Collector. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated November 13, 1979 allowed the application and granted exemption certificate holding that the Certificate of Registration under the Public Trust Act is produced and the accounts are verified by the Government Auditor and, the conditions under section 88-B(1)(b) are compiled with. Against the decision recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners carried revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same was withdrawn as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain revision application. The petitioners have thereafter filed the present petition to challenge the legality of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.

3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer in issuing exemption certificate without notice to the petitioners tenants is entirely illegal and, therefore, the order is required to be set aside. To appreciate, the contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of section 88-B of the Act. Section 88-B(1)(b) of the Act reads as under :

(1) Nothing in the foregoing provisions except sections 3, 4-B, 8, 9, 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10, 10-A, 11, 13, and 27 and the provisions of Chapter VI and VIII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above shall apply---

(b) to lands which are the property of a trust for an educational purpose, a hospital, Penjarapole, Gaushala or an institution for public religious worship :

Provided that---

(i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and

(ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purpose of such trust."

Sub-section (2) of section 88-B reads as under :

"For the purposes of this section, a certificate granted by the Collector, after holding an inquiry, that the conditions in the provision to sub-section (1) are satisfied by any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that behalf."

The plain reading of section 88-B makes it clear that an exemption certificate can be granted in favour of the T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document