JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard advocates for the petitioner and respondent.

2. The parties have been litigating about their rights in respect of the suit land since 1951. During last 40 years there have been number of orders and remands to the lower Authorities for at least an half dozen of times, and as such the matter has to be conclusively and finally decided by this Court.

3. Though the litigation is going on for last 40 years, the question involved is very short. The respondent made an application under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The certificate was granted to the respondent on 19-10-1961. Admittedly, the certificate included land over which the petitioner is claiming right. The petitioner challenged the order of granting certificate, but however, he was unsuccessful, after which an inquiry under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act was started for determining the price of the land to be paid by the tenants. But the proceedings were dropped by the A.L.T. on 14-8-1961. This gave rise to the appeals and remands up to the last order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dt. 9-7-1985 by which order, the M.R.T. dismissed both the revisions filed by the respondent against the order of Assistant Collector, Mahabaleshwar dated 21-12-1983 Case No. TA 1/83 and the order dated 21-12-1983 in Case No. 1-A 4/83.

4. Only question involved in this case is, whether in view of the certificate granted to the respondent under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act the proceedings in respect of the suit land could be initiated under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act, and whether the petitioner can challenge the grant of the certificate under section 88-B of the said Act in favour of the respondent.

5. It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that when the proceedings under section 88-B were initiated at the instance of the respondent, no notice was given to the petitioner and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice to him. It was secondly contended that even if the certificate under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act granted to the respondent, same did not affect the suit land and the proceedings under section 32-G, and consequently the proceedings should not have been dropped and should have been held in favour of the petitioner who was a tenant of the land since last 100 years.

6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court in support of his contentions viz. 1969 Mh.L.J. 476 (Sri Laxminarayan Temple v. Laxman Mahadu Chandore)1 and 1979 Mh.L.J. 163 (Chhatrapati Charitable Devasthan Trust v. Parisa Appa Bhoske)2.

7. From the arguments of the parties it was clear that even though the notices were not issued to the petitioner during the proceedings under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner had challenged the order of granting the certificate, but has failed there. Secondly, as per the admitted facts the respondent trust was registered on 5-10-1953, that the application for the certificate was made in 1959 and the certificate was issued on 19-10-1961 and thereafter proceedings under section 32-G were initiated thereafter in respect of the right of the petitioner as on tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957.

8. In view of this fact, it has to be seen firstly whether the registration of the trust in 1953 adversely affect the rights of the petitioner under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act.

9. In the Division Bench's judgment of this Court reported in 1969 Mh.L.J. 476, which was pressed in service by the Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, the trust was registered on 28-3-1958. Thereafter in 1962 the trustees applied for an exemption certificate under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act. The tenant opposed the application on the ground that he had become the owner of the land on the Tillers' Day (1-4-1957) i.e. prior to the date on which the trust was registered, therefore, the trust was not entitled to the exemption certificate. While deciding this point the Division Bench of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document