Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(B.P. Dhamzadhikari, J.)
MAROTI SANSTHAN, TIWSA - Petitioner
V.
GULAB HARIBHAUJIRAPURE (dead) and others - Respondents
Advocates appeared
For petitioner: J. J. Chandurkar
For respondents: V. A. Masodkar
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Section 129(b) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 28 Claim for exemption under Section 129(b) by a trust Entitlement Registration of trust under Bombay Public Trusts Act on tillers’ day not necessary Only requisite is that the entire income of said land should be appropriated for the purpose of the trust. The exemption under Section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act is available to the lands, which are property of a trust for educational purposes, hostel, hospital, panjarpole, Gaushala or an institution for public religious worship provided the entire income of such lands is permitted for the purpose of said trust. It is, therefore, apparent that Section 129(b) of the 1958 Act does not require any registration as contemplated under Section 88-B of the 1948 Act. Only requisite under Section 129(b) is that the entire income of said land should be appropriated for the purpose of the trust. The requirement that trust should be registered or should be deemed to have been registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is nowhere reflected in Section 129(b) of the 1958 Act. When the particular requirement is not provided for by the Legislature in Section 129(b), it is not for the Court to read such a condition in it and therefor, it cannot be held that the petitioner trust must be registered on the tillers’ day for the purpose of claiming exemption under the 1958 Act. It is an admitted position that the petitioner trust has been registered on 19.9.1962 and the tillers day 1.4.1961.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, a trust, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal regarding the heritability of tenancy rights and the validity of exemption claims under relevant land and trust statutes (!) (!) .
The primary legal issue involved whether the trust's registration status on the relevant "tillers' day" (the date of land transfer or possession) affected its entitlement to exemption under the applicable laws, specifically sections 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (!) (!) .
The law states that exemption under section 88-B of the 1948 Act is available only to trusts that are or are deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, with registration or deemed registration being a necessary condition for exemption (!) (!) .
Conversely, section 129(b) of the 1958 Act provides exemption to lands owned by trusts for specific purposes (educational, religious, hospital, etc.) if the entire income from such lands is dedicated to the trust’s purpose, without explicitly requiring registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act (!) (!) .
The validity of the exemption certificate issued to the trust under section 129(b) is considered conclusive evidence of the trust’s compliance with the conditions, and this certificate cannot be questioned in collateral proceedings (!) (!) .
The date of registration of the trust (whether before or after the tillers' day) is crucial in determining the land's vesting and the trust’s eligibility for exemption. If the trust was not registered or deemed registered before the relevant date, the land vests in the landowner or respondent, affecting exemption claims (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the trust’s registration under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1950, is deemed to be registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is relevant for exemption purposes under section 88-B (!) (!) .
The court observed that the exemption under section 129(b) does not require the trust to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, as long as the trust’s income is exclusively used for its purposes and the relevant certificate is issued (!) (!) .
The court found that the objections regarding the trust's registration status on the relevant date and the validity of the exemption certificate could not be sustained, leading to the quashing of the tribunal's order and the restoration of the previous order of the subordinate authority (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment clarified the distinctions between the registration requirements under different statutes and reinforced that exemption claims depend primarily on the trust’s compliance with the specific conditions of the applicable law, rather than solely on registration status (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
2. Mr. Chandurkar, Advocate has filed application for consequential amendment and the same is rejected being belated. Mr. Chandurkar, while arguing the case for the petitioner has stated that the Sub Divisional Officer had relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court reported in Ramchandra Nagoji Bondre and others vs. Shri Mangaleshwar Maharaj Sansthan and others, 1986 MhLJ. 125 to hold that the tenancy of public trust cannot be inherited. He further states that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has relied upon on a later judgment reported in Khanqah -Kadria Trust (Wakf), Balapur vs. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji, 1989 MhLJ. 891 to accept the contentions of respondents that tenancy can be inherited. He points out that this ruling in Khanqah -Kadria Trust (Wakj), Balapur vs. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji, 1989 Mh.L.J. 891 itself has been reversed by the Honble Apex Court and the said judgment in Shriram Mandir Sansthan @ Shri Ram Sansthan Pusda VS. Vatsalabai and others, 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 321 (SC). According to him, therefore, the very basis of the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal does not exist and the said order, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside. He further states that the order of Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, needs to be restored. He also points out that against the other respondents in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner vide Writ Petition No. 1811/1992 same order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 31 -3 -1992 was questioned. He points out that this order is common in the said Revision No. 51/1987 and also present revision which was registered as Revision No. 92/1997. He points out that the order dated 31 -3 -1992 in Revision No. 51/1987 is set aside by this Court in the above writ petition on 14 -12 -2004. Therefore, the learned counsel urges that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court and, therefore, the present writ petition also needs to be allowed.
3. Mr. Masodkar, Advocate, who appears for respondent in the matter states that the said judgment will not apply in the facts of the present case because according to him, the petitioner -trust must be a registered trust on 1 -11 -1961 to enable it to claim exemption under section 129(b) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act. He states that admittedly, in the facts of the present case the petitioner -trust has been registered under Bombay Public Trust Act on 19 -9 -1962 and, therefore, the property had vested in the respondents, on the tillers day. According to him, therefore, as the petitioner -trust was not registered trust on 14 -1961 the exemption certificate obtained by the petitioner on 13 -11 -1964 is of no consequence. He relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in Eknath Bhiku Yadav and another vs. Ganpatrao Shankarrao Dhawan and others, 2006( 3) Mh.L.J. 288 to substantiate his contention.
4. In reply. Mr. Chandurkar. Advocate argues that the point was not raised before the lower Authorities and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has not considered this point. He further argues that the Certificate has been given to the petitioner -Trust under section 129(b) of the 1958 Act and in vie
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
