The certificate of exemption issued by the Collector under section 88-B(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is conclusive evidence of the satisfaction of the conditions for exemption under section 88-B(1) and is not subject to revision by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT -The present petition questions the order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under section 76, exercising powers of revision against the certificate issued by the District Deputy Collector under section 88-B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That exemption certificate was granted on December 26, 1959 whereby it was certified that the present petitioner trust is an institution for public religious worship and as such is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the entire income of the lands mentioned in the schedule appended is appropriated for the purposes of the trust and thus the conditions in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 88-B are satisfied by the trust. Respondent No.1 Kisan is concerned with Survey Nos. 77, 78 and 83, while respondent No.2 Shripati is concerned with survey No. 231 of Village Supa, which four survey numbers are included along with other survey numbers in the schedule. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, before whom the question of jurisdiction was raised, allowed the revision mainly on the ground that the inquiry was held against the back of the applicants and they had no notice of that inquiry and, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for fresh inquiry.

2. The first and the foremost question is whether section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was available to the Tribunal so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the matter of grant of certificate under section 88-B (2) of the Act.

3. As far as the statutory character and the scheme of the provisions of section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are concerned, there is the Division Bench authority of this Court in the case of Manekji Edulji Mistry v. Manekshu Aradeshir Irani1, where the Court observed that the lands belonging to a trust falling under sub-section (1) (b) of section 88-B would be exempt from the operation of some of the provisions of the Act, provided such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the, purposes of such trust. In a proceeding where a claim is set up to exemption by the trust, what is necessary is to satisfy these two requirements. Sub-section (2) of section 88-B of the Act indicates and embodies a rule of evidence, in that the certificate granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry is conclusive evidence with regard to the satisfaction of the two requirements. In an appeal from Manekji Edulji Mistry's case taken to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment, the Supreme Court Maneksha Ardeshir Irani v. Manekji Edulji Mistry2 has observed thus :-

"A contention was advanced on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was entitled to a notice when the Collector held an inquiry under section 88-B (2) of the Act for the purpose of granting a certificate to the respondent. The Collector under section 88-B (2) of the Act grants a certificate after holding an inquiry that the conditions in the proviso to section 88-B (1) are satisfied by any trust. The trust has to satisfy two conditions. First, the Trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Second, the entire income of the lands which are the property of the Trust is appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. The certificate granted by the Collector shall be conclusive evidence. The appellant raised this contention in the High Court that the appellant was entitled to a notice. The High Court did not accept the contention. The High Court held that the appellant at no stage denied the fact that the lands' are the property of a Trust. The inquiry is between the Collector and the Trust. The conclusive evidence clause in the section means that it is a rule of evidence which would not render it necessary for it to prove again the compliance with the requirements." (Italics supplied.)

The ratio of these observations on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document