PATEL PARSHOTTAMDAS CHHELDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the trustees of a public trust known as PATEL LALJI LAXMIDAS SADAVRAT SANSTHA have challenged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal of April 12 1973 confirming the order of the Deputy Collector Patan holding that the aforesaid trust was not entitled to exemption under sec. 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act ). The Charity Commissioner Gujarat has by his order of April 27 1962 sanctioned the scheme while permitting the amalgamation of the two trusts viz. Patel Lalji Laxmidas Nava Ramji Mandir Public Trust and Swami Muktanand Sadavrat Public Trust. The objects of the said trust were according to Clause 2 of the said scheme (1) maintenance and upkeep of the temple (2) performance of Dev Seva Puja of the temple (3) Sadavrat (4) education and medical relief and (5) general acts of public ultility. Clauses 5 of the said scheme enjoins the trustees to apply the balance of the income after defraying all charges costs expenses rates and taxes to the various objects in the proportion Specified in sub-clause (b) thereof. The trustees were under obligation to apply 15% of the balance income towards education and medical relief each; 25% to Dev Seva Puja and Sadavrat each and 20% to general acts of public utility. It is in this context of the scheme that the Deputy Collector Patan by his order of October 16 1972 refused to grant certificate under sec. 88-B of the Tenancy Act. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also in revision preferred by the petitioner-trustees confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector Patan as the trust was a composite trust.

(2.) Mr. Patel learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-trustees assailed the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by urging that the Tribunal was clearly in error in refusing the certificate under sec. 88-B of the Tenancy Act as the learned Member of the Tribunal was impressed by a consideration which was entirely erroneous. The learned Member of the Tribunal was of the opinion that since under sec. 88-B of the Tenancy Act which was introduced as a result of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act 1969 the certificate issued under the said section to a religious trust stood revoked and the lands of such trust being Devasthan lands the provisions of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act 1969 would apply. In submission of Mr. Patel this is entirely an extraneous consideration which has prevailed with the learned Member of the Tribunal. He also criticised the view of the learned Member of the Tribunal that the trust in question being a composite trust was not entitled to the certificate under sec. 88-B of the Tenancy Act. The only relevant considerations according to Mr. Patel for granting such certificate are those which are prescribed under sec. 88-B. The prescribed relevant considerations are that a trust applying for certificate under sec. 88-B should be for educational purpose or for a hospital Panjrapole or Gaushala and it must be a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and whose entire income out of the lands is appropriated for the purpose of such trust. Since the trust in question before me is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 inter alia with the object of education as well as medical relief it satisfies all the relevant considerations prescribed under sec. 88-B and therefore entitled to tHe certificate. In so far as the Tribunal was influenced by extraneous considerations its order confirming the order of the Deputy Collector Patan is vitiated and must be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I am afraid I cannot agree with this broad submission of Mr. Patel for the petitioners. The legislative intent as evinced in sec. 88-B is to exempt lands of certain institutions like university or public trusts with certain objects specified in the section or where the lands are assignod or donated for the purpose of rendering the specified community services. There are further conditions imposed by the proviso in case of a public trust. Since I am concerned with a question of a public trust the provision contained in sec. 88-B-(1)(b) together with the proviso would apply. The material part of sec. 88-B which is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under: