Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal - Petitioner
Versus
The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2014
Decided On : 23-02-2016
TENANCY - SUMMARY EVICTION - EXEMPTION FROM TENANCY LEGISLATION - LANDS HELD BY TRUSTS - CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION - TENANT'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE LAND - FAILURE TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE - DEFEAT OF TITLE - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 120 OF THE MAHARASHTRA TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS (VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Trust had filed an application under Section 120(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”), for recovery of possession on 15-6-2001, which was allowed by an order dated 9-5-2003 passed by the Tahsildar. The appeal preferred against it was dismissed on 17-6-2003. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision under Section 111 of the said Act, has set aside the decisions given by the lower authorities, and the application filed under Section 120(c) of the said Act for eviction and possession by the petitioner-Trust, has been dismissed. Hence, the Trust is before this Court in this petition.
Finding of the Court:
The undisputed factual position in Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2014 is that one Bhagwansingh and his wife Badamibai were the tenants in personal cultivation of the land bearing Survey No. 83 and Gat No. 203/B, which were gifted to the petitioner-Trust on 3-10-1950. The Trust was registered in the year 1961-1962 as a Public Trust. The tenancy continued and Bhagwansingh died in the year 1984, whereas Smt. Badamibai died on 9-6-2001. After obtaining certificate of exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act on 1-10-2001, an application was moved under Section 120(c) therein for eviction and possession against the legal representatives of the original tenants, who are the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein.
Issues: 1. Once the ownership or title of the land is transferred and vested in the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 46 or sub-section (1) of Section 49A of the said Act on the tillers' day, i.e. 1-4-1961 or 1-4-1963, as the case may be, whether the legal representatives of the original tenant can be evicted under Section 120 on the basis of the certificate of exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act obtained subsequently in respect of the land belonging to a Public Trust? 2. Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has committed an error in holding that since the certificate of exemption issued on 1-10-2001 under Section 129(b) of the said Act does not include the land Survey No. 83 and Gat No. 203/B, which are in cultivating possession of the legal representatives of the original tenant, the respondents cannot be evicted under Section 120(c) of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the said Act, the tenant in cultivating possession of the land as on 1-4-1961 becomes statutory owner of the said land with effect from the said date and becomes entitled to purchase it under Section 41 subject to the provisions of Sections 42 to 44 of the said Act. 2. Section 49A, introduced with effect from 1st of March, 1962 by Maharashtra Act No.2 of 1962, repeats the language of Section 46 and it fixes the date of 1st of April, 1963 to transfer of ownership and vesting of title in favour of a tenant in respect of all land held by him, being the land which is not transferred to the tenant under Section 46 or which is not purchased by him under Sections 41 and 50 of the parent Act. 3. If the tenant fails to obtain a certificate of purchase under subsection (8) of Section 43 within a reasonable time, the sale becomes ineffective or defeasible and shall result in the consequences of deemed surrender of tenancy by the tenant to the landlord under Section 20 of the said Act, and the tenant will no longer continue to be the owner of the land in his possession. 4. In order to claim exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act, what is essential is that - (i) the land in question is the property of a Trust for an educational purpose, hospital, panjarpole, Gaushala, or an institution for public religious worship; and (ii) the entire income of the land is appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. 5. The exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act is the conclusive evidence of the fact that the land in question is the property of the Public Trust and the entire income therefrom is appropriated for the purposes of such Trust.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11-1-2013 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Tenancy Revision No.3 TEN/2003-04/Ambhora, is hereby quashed and set aside, and the order dated 7-6-2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Murtizapur, in Revenue Appeal No. TNC/107/2/Ambhora/2002-03, is restored.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner-Trust had filed an application under Section 120(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”), for recovery of possession on 15-6-2001, which was allowed by an order dated 9-5-2003 passed by the Tahsildar. The appeal preferred against it was dismissed on 17-6-2003. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision under Section 111 of the said Act, has set aside the decisions given by the lower authorities, and the application filed under Section 120(c) of the said Act for eviction and possession by the petitioner-Trust, has been dismissed. Hence, the Trust is before this Court in this petition.
3. The undisputed factual position in Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2014 is that one Bhagwansingh and his wife Badamibai were the tenants in personal cultivation of the land bearing Survey No. 83 and Gat No. 203/B, which were gifted to the petitioner-Trust on 3-10-1950. The Trust was registered in the year 1961-1962 as a Public Trust. The tenancy continued and Bhagwansingh died in the year 1984, whereas Smt. Badamibai died on 9-6-2001. After obtaining certificate of exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act on 1-10-2001, an application was moved under Section 120(c) therein for eviction and possession against the legal representatives of the original tenants, who are the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein.
4. The authorities below, viz. the Tahsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, have held that in view of the certificate of exemption issued on 1-10-2001, the Trust was entitled to claim eviction and recovery of possession after the death of original tenants Bhagwansingh and Smt. Badamibai. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has reversed this finding holding that the certificate of exemption issued on 1-10-2001, under Section 129(b) of the said Act does not include the land Survey No. 83 and Gat No. 203/B, which were in cultivating possession of the original tenants-Bhagwansingh and Smt. Badamibai, who became the owners of the said lands after the tillers' day i.e. on 1-4-1963. Perusal of the order dated 1-4-2001 passed under Section 129(b) of the said Act granting certificate of exemption shows the survey numbers which are exempted, and it further states that Gat No. 203/B, admeasuring 12.79 HR, Mouza Anbhora, is in possession of the legal heirs of Bhagwansing and Smt. Badamibai, and hence that is deleted from the lands which are exempted. It is also not in dispute that the list of survey numbers which are exempted do not indicate Survey No. 83. Hence, the undisputed position is that the lands in question are not included in the list of land survey numbers shown to be exempted in the certificate of exemption.
5. Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Trust, does not dispute this factual position, but has urged that the exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act could only be to the Public Trust without mentioning any land owned by such Trust. He submits that that the exemption is not to the lands, but to the Trust. He has further urged that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has committed an error in holding that there was no exemption to the petitioner-Trust in respect of the lands in question, and the reliance by the Tribunal on the decision of this Court in the case of Mahadeo Sansthan Wadali v. Syed Turab s/o Syed Jaffar and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 22, was misplaced. Shri Anand Deshpande has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shriram Mandir Sansthan @ Shri Ram Sansthan Pusda v. Vatsalabai and others, reported in 1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 321, for the proposition that the tenancy in respect of the land belonging to the Trust is not heritable, and the decision of this Court in Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon v. Digambar Pandhari Bhise, reported in 2005 (4) Bom.C.R. 376, for the
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
