LAWS(BOM)-2000-7-119

RUSTOM B M COLAH Vs. TAHSILDAR PALGHAR

Decided On July 18, 2000
RUSTOM B.M.COLAH Appellant
V/S
TAHSILDAR,PALGHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Appeals and Revisions), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay dated 5-7-1986.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners are trustees of a public charitable institution registered with the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act bearing Registration No. C-157. The trust had started Masina Hospital in the year 1902 administrated by Dr. H. M. Masina, FRCS. The Masina Hospital is a cosmopolitan charitable hospital catering to the medical requirements of all communities and sections of the society. The hospital has about 300 beds and employs about 400 workers. That one Mr. Jamshedji Hormusji Eranee (Francis) donated grass growing lands bearing No. 488, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814 and 815 situated at village Fokman, Taluka Palghar, District. Thane having an area of about 90 acres. The said lands were donated to the public trust.

(3.) THE petitioners applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dahanu Division, Dahanu for exemption under section 47 (2) (a) of The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on the ground that the said lands were held by the public charitable trust and the income derived from the said lands was being utilised for the medical relief of the patients admitted in the hospital of the trust. It was the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had complied with all other requirements entitling the exemption of the said lands within the meaning of the section 47 of the Act. The Officer on Special Duty (Appeals and Revisions) who decided the said application has in terms held that the trust apparently fulfills all the requirements of provisions of section 47 (2) (a) of the Act and is eligible for exemption. The only reason which weighed with the authority was that the trust was not geared up to provide the necessary infrastructure in enhancing the income from the lands in question so as to support the medical relief required to be provided by the trust through the hospital run by the trust. The Officer on Special Duty (Appeals and Revision) accordingly rejected the exemption application, but still strongly recommended that the trust should provide the necessary infrastructure to make excellent commercial propositions which was bound to benefit the trust.