Back
2004 Supreme(Bom) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khanwilkar A.M., J.
Ramagiri Gurudattagiri Gosavi another ... Petitioners.
Versus
Aba Alli Mulani since deceased
by his legal heirs another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3827 of 1984, decided on 8-6-2004.
Advocates appeared :
S.V. Sadavarte, for petitioners.
R.V. More, for respondent No. 1-a.
P.D. Dalvi, for respondent No. 2.
Subject
Land Law - Tenancy and Agricultural Land
Act Referred
Headnote
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32-G and 88-B - Where Section 88-B had no application to the fact situation of the case, respondents became deemed purchaser by virtue of deeming provision on the tillers day. - As Section 88-B of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the present case, to Court’s mind, no fault can be found with the impugned decision of the Tribunal, which has affirmed the purchase price determined by the appropriate authority towards purchase of the suit lands by the respondent who is a deemed purchaser on account of the mandatory provisions of the Act. The counsel appearing for the petitioners did not address High Court on the appropriateness of the purchase price determined by the authorities below. Accordingly, even that conclusion reached by the Tribunal will have to be upheld.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 88-B(1)(b) - Requirements to get benefit of Section 88-B(1)(b) of Act. - To get benefit of Section 88-B(1)(b) of Act, Public Trust must be for public religious worship and entire income of land derived by Trust must be appropriated for proposes of Trust. - The petitioner Trust had not fulfiled either of the twin requirements under Section 88-B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, so as to get benefit of the said provision. The object of the petitioner Trust was spiritual and religious "teaching" only. Obviously, it cannot be assumed to be a trust for public religious worship as such. The petitioner Trust also failed to establish the fact that the income, much less the entire income derived from the suit lands was appropriated by the petitioners for the purposes of the Trust. As Section 88-B of the Act had no application to the fact situation of the present case, no fault can be found with the impugned decision of the Tribunal. The petitioner Trust had not fulfiled either of the twin requirements under Section 88-B(1)(b) of the Act, so as to get benefit of the said provision.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 88-B(1)(b) - Benefit under - Imperative for petitioner claiming benefit to establish twin requirements - A trust for pubic religious worship under Section 88-B(1)(b) and entire income of suit land derived by petitioner trust appropriated for purpose of such trust. - To get benefit of Section 88-B it is imperative for the petitioners to establish the twin requirement that the petitioner trust was a trust for pubic religious worship as is required by Section 88-B(1)(b) and that the entire income of the suit lands derived by the petitioner trust was appropriated for the purchases of such trust.
2. Be that as it may, the Revisional Authority was pleased to allow the said Revision Application filed by the petitioners. Against that decision, respondents carried writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 788 of 1979. Both the writ petitions pending before this Court eventually came to be disposed of by common Judgment and Order dated August 3, 1982. By that decision, the matter stood remanded to the file of the Revisional Authority for examining the same, in accordance with law. In that sense, the matter which was initiated on the basis of the application filed by the respondent for fixation of purchase price under section 32-G of the Act as well as at the instance of the petitioners pursuant to application under section 88-B of the Act, was left open to be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Order, has accepted the stand of the Respondents and has found that the petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of provisions of section 88-B of the Act because it did not fulfill the requirement of the nature of trust as well as the factum that the income derived from the suit lands was appropriated for the purposes of the Trust. On that reasoning, the Tribunal held that the petitioners were not entitled for protection of section 88-B of the Act and consequently proceeded to hold that the respondents had become deemed purchaser by virtue of deeming provision on the tillers day and therefore, proceeded to affirm the purchase price determined by the appropriate authority. This decision is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. The first contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the question as to whether the petitioner trust is a religious worship trust or not, has been incorrectly decided by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the finding reached by the Tribunal that the income derived from the suit lands was not appropriated for the purpose of the Trust, is also unsustainable. It was also contended that the question as to whether the Certificate under section 88-B of the Act could. be issued in favour of the petitioner trust, could not have been matter in issue befo
