O R D E R

1. Application for deleting the name of respondent No.2 is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Signature Not Verified parties.

Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.03.03

1 R7 e: a5 s1 o:0 n2 : IST 3. This is a case where the appellant has taken inconsistent pleas including one which includes claiming his right as an agreement holder. The appellant has woken up after several years and decided to pursue action after an application has been filed by the respondents for resumption, decades after achieving the status of a public trust, which was followed by the issuance of an exemption certificate.

4. Suffice it is to state that the father of the appellant had chosen not to challenge either the aforesaid proceedings, or to claim his status as an agreement holder. Merely because the appellant is the legal heir of the erstwhile tenant, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (for short, the Act, 1958) as the provision clearly indicates a mandate of being in cultivatory possession.

5. Thus, looking at the dispute from any perspective, we are not inclined to allow this appeal. We only observe that the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the High Court to show that a tenant is entitled to be heard at the time of considering whether an exemption under Section 129B of the Act, 1958 is to be granted.

6. We would like to clarify that the said judgment which has been referred to shall not be quoted as a precedent considering that the Act, 1958 nowhere contemplates that such an action is mandatory. It is one thing to discuss effect of an exemption once granted, and another to consider the right to participate in the proceedings which is between the trust seeking the exemption, and the authorities who are evaluating the same.

7. With the aforesaid clarification being made, the appeals are dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………J.

[M.M. SUNDRESH]

……………………………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

NEW DELHI;

27^th FEBRUARY, 2025 ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.8 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 11063/2024 ISHWARCHAND SUWALAL HURKAT Appellant(s)

VERSUS MANAGESHWAR MAHARAJ SANSTHAN THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES BHAGIRATH KISANLALJI SARDA & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 19638/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 36749/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 25633/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 36748/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES WITH C.A. No. 11064/2024 (III)

IA No. 225448/2024 - DELETING THE NAME OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IA No. 225449/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 175202/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 175201/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 27-02-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Appellant(s) Mr. S. N. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv.

Mr. Santanu S. Khedkar, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv.

Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Jha, Adv.

Ms. Surabhi Jain, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Application for deleting the name of respondent No.2 is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)