JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.

:-This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in substance, takes exception to the order dated June 6, 1981, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasik Sub-Division Nasik in Tenancy Application No. 1 of 1981. Briefly stated, the land in question is Survey No. 726 within Municipal limits of Nasik. The land is owned by the respondent Trust. The said trust is duly registered trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The respondents, therefore, filed application for grant of exemption under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 in respect of the suit lands. That application has been allowed by the impugned order. Against, third decision, the petitioner carried the matter in revision which was, however, dismissed as not maintainable. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as to whether such revision was maintainable or not because this writ petition has been admitted as back as on 30th August, 1982. As mentioned earlier, in substance, this writ petition questions the correctness of the decision dated June 6, 1981 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. The first contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no clear finding recorded by the authority as to the purpose for which the trust has been duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. According to him, it is only those public trusts which are registered for educational purpose, hospitals, panjarpol, gaushala or for public religious worship would qualify for exemption under section 88-B of the Act. It is next contended that even the finding recorded by the authority on the issue as to whether the entire income of the suit land is appropriated for the purposes of the trust cannot be sustained. On the above arguments, learned Counsel submits that the order under appeal be set aside.

3. Although respondents have been served, they had initially entered appearance through Mr. N.S. Shastri. Mr. Shastri is present in Court, but he states that the respondents have now engaged Mr. A.R. Shaikh, without obtaining his no objection. He submits that he has no instructions to appear in the matter. Although Vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. A.R. Shaikh without obtaining no objection from Mr. Shastri, he is not present when the matter is called out for hearing.

4. Having considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and on going through the record with the assistance of the Counsel for the petitioners, I have no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition being devoid of merits. The first grievance made on behalf of the petitioners is that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent trust has been created for one of the purpose stated in section 88-B(1)(b) of the Act. This submission clearly overlooks the fact that the certificate issued by the Charity Commissioner in favour of the respondent trust has already been brought on record by the respondents before the lower authority. The lower authority has adverted to that certificate and opined that it qualifies the requirement under section 88-B(1)(b) of the Act. No doubt the authority has not specifically opined that the respondent trust is registered for public religious worship as such, but on going through the certificate which is issued by the Charity Commissioner, which forms part of the record, it is seen that the respondent trust was originally registered mentioning the purpose as "For prayer of Muslim people". However, this object of the trust has been deleted and at the relevant time, the object of the trust has been stated as follows: "(1) To look after Masjid and to carry on other religious functions as per the custom and practice in force and also to make necessary arrangements for the prayers of Muslims in Masjid; (2) To run Madrasa and Darul-Uloom with a view to impart religious teaching to Muslim boys and girls; (3)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document