Back
Bombay High Court
MASODKAR
Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar - Appellant
Versus
Kisan Namdeo Pawar - Respondent
Decided On : 03/22/1979
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 88-B(2) - CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COLLECTOR - REVISION BY TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF SECTION 76 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner trust challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 against the certificate issued by the District Deputy Collector under Section 88-B(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The certificate exempted the petitioner trust's lands from certain provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 76 of the Act was not available to the Tribunal to interfere with the certificate issued by the Collector under Section 88-B(2). The Court interpreted Section 88-B(2) and contrasted it with Section 88-C, highlighting the difference in the legislative drafting and the finality attached to the certification proceedings under Section 88-B.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was available to the Tribunal to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter of grant of certificate under Section 88-B(2) of the Act. 2. Whether the certificate issued by the Collector under Section 88-B(2) was subject to revision by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 88-B(2) of the Act and held that the certification proceeding before the Collector was not a trial that ended in an order, but an inquiry for the purpose of acquiring conclusive evidence on certain matters. 2. The Court contrasted Section 88-B with Section 88-C and noted that Section 88-C expressly provided for an inquiry, notice, and a decision, while Section 88-B did not. 3. The Court held that the certificate issued by the Collector under Section 88-B(2) was conclusive evidence and not subject to challenge in any higher jurisdiction, unless there was an express provision in that regard. 4. The Court interpreted Section 76 of the Act and held that the general phraseology employed by the section did not make every order of the Collector subject to revision by the Tribunal. 5. The Court held that the finality attached to the certification proceeding under Section 88-B(2) was not a legislative oversight, but a deliberate choice to leave the matters at the stage of the Collector itself.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that Section 76 was not available to the Tribunal to interfere with the certificate issued by the Collector under Section 88-B(2) of the Act.
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. Maneksha Ardeshir Irani, (1973) 75 Bom LR 609, 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 judgement, the Supreme Court (Maneksha Ardeshir Irani v. Manekji Edulji Mistry. AIR 1974 SC 2123, at p. 2125) 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 would not render it necessary for it to prove again the compliance with the requirements." (Emphasis supplied).
The ratio of these observations on
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
