JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri P. M. Shah. learned Senior Counsel holding for S/Shri. S.P. Shah and D. B. Rode, advocates for petitioners, Shri. R. N. Dhorde.learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mrs. B. R. Khekale, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Petitioners, who are tenants in respect of disputed lands, are praying for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 15.11.1958, passed by District Deputy Collector, Pamer Division. Ahmednagar, thereby granting exemption certificate in favour of Respondent No.1- Trust, as contemplated by provisions of Section 88-B (1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 (herein after referred to as 'Act of 1948').

3, Respondent No.1 is a public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950. Respondent No.1 is working in the field of education and runs many schools and colleges including one educational institution at Shrigonda.

4, According to petitioners, they are in physical possession over the agricultural lands bearing G.No.2124/1 (S.No.1040). admeasuring 5 hectares 56 ares. G.No.2124/2 (S.No.1047) admeasuring 6 hectares 36 ares and G.No.2124/18 (S.No.1 048), admeasuring 9 hectares 12 ares, situate at Shrigonda. Taluka Sangamner. District Ahmednagar, as tenants thereof. The lands admittedly belong to a family member of Shinde Sarkar (Scindia).

5. Some of the admitted facts are that:

In the year 1956. Shrimant Jivojirao Madhavrao Scindia executed a deed of settlement and granted 56 agricultural lands including disputed properties in favour of the Trust. The District Deputy Collector. Pamer Division. Ahmednagar granted exemption certificate as contemplated under Section 88B of the Act of 1948 in favour of Respondent Trust on 15.11.1958. It is also an admitted fact that while issuing certificate by the Deputy Collector, no notice was served on the tenants and the proceedings are concluded in the absence of tenants. It is also a fact to be borne out from the record that impugned order is devoid of reasons.

A Civil Suit bearing No.83/78 came to be instituted by the Trust in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Ahmednagar on 28.03.1978 seeking decree of restoration of possession of the suit properties and for arrears of rent against the predecessor-in-title of petitioners. The suit was partly decreed. However, relief of possession was not granted. The Trust, therefore, approached the appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.166/ 98, which came to be heard and disposed of by District Judge. Ahmednagar, who was pleased to grant decree in respect of recovery of possession in favour of Respondent-Trust on 14.08.2002. A Second Appeal was presented raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, before this Court, being S.A. No. 120/2003. However. the appeal came to be dismissed by this Court thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 18.12.2002. In the concluding portion of the judgment in Second Appeal, it has been observed by this Court:

"Obviously, now it is difficult to hold that the Trust could not have claimed such certificate and that it could not be issued without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants. particularly while dealing with the Second Appeal. These questions can be agitated by the appellants by filing appropriate writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the said certificate. It prima facie appears that the appellants were unaware of the certificate in question and were litigating under improper impression that they could challenge the said certificate in the proceedings before the Civil Court, as per their contentions. Consequently. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. yet deem it proper to grant reasonable time to the appellants to seek appropriate remedy regarding challenge to the certificate under Sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document