JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J.:---Heard.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

At the outset the petitioner in this case prays for amendment of this petition as the petitioner intends to delete respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 from this petition. The oral application made by Mr. Deshpande on behalf of the petitioner is granted. Amendment is allowed.

2. The petitioner is this case is a Trust having agricultural lands in Taluka Saswad, district Pune. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 are the tenants in the said lands. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 were the tenants in respect of certain land on the Tiller's day, 32(g) proceedings started against the petitioner - Trust. However, with a view to save some part of the land for the Trust, the Trust decided to compromise with the tenants. It appears that the petitioner - Trust was successful in settling the dispute by compromise and by virtue of the said compromise with the tenants the petitioner - Trust retained a portion of the land and agreed rest of the land to be purchased by the tenants under section 32(g) proceedings. The petitioner - Trust thereafter sent the said terms of the compromise to respondent No. 7 for his section under section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. But, respondent No. 7 rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner - Trust ought to have obtained sanction prior to entering into such a compromise with the respondent-tenants. Since they had failed to do so, the compromise entered into between the petitioner - Trust and respondent-tenants was declared illegal. Respondent No. 7 has further observed that in view of the steps taken by the petitioner - Trust to compromise the dispute in respect of the trust properties with the respondent-tenants, necessary action be taken against the petitioner - Trust under section 67 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Against this order dated April 3, 1992, passed by respondent No. 7, the petitioner - Trust has filed the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Nitin Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Trust, contended that the petitioner - Trust was admittedly registered on September 9, 1958, i.e. definitely after the tiller's day i.e. April 1, 1957. Therefore, in view of the decision given in the case of (Shri Laxminarayan Temple v. Laxman)1, 1969 Mh.L.J. 476, the petitioner - Trust being registered after April 1, 1957, is not entitled to exemption certificate under section 88(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

4. I have also heard Mr. Parshurami, the learned Counsel for the respondents. But, according to me since admittedly the Trust was registered after the tiller's day the petitioner - Trust was not entitled to get the exemption certificate under section 88(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. This being the position, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 being the tenants on the lands owned by the petitioner - Trust on the tiller's day were the statutory purchasers on April 1, 1957. Since it is a statutory purchase, in fact, there was no need for the petitioner - Trust to get sanction under section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act as the said Act comes into operation only if there is sale, exchange, gift of immovable property belonging to Trust and not in case of statutory purchase under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

5. Further, in this matter in order to avoid the total loss of the land, the trustees in the larger interest of the Trust have entered into a compromise with the tenants and fortunately they were in a position to persuade the tenants to leave some land for the Trust. By a compromise in fact the trustees saved some property which was lost by the Trust and, therefore, in the light of these circumstances there was no question of obtaining any sanction under section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In any case, if the trustees had filed an application for sanction under section 36(1), the same ought to have been granted by resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document