MOHAMMED HANIF BABASAHEB BAGWAN Vs. ABA DAJI MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. H. A. Solkar with MR. M. H. Solkar for the petitioners. The petitioners are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and validity of : (1) the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur Division, Solapur on 29. 2. 1984 while deciding Tenancy Application No. 35/1983, (2) the judgment and order passed by Member of M. R. T. Pune in the matter of Tenancy Application No. 35/83-MRT-SH-IX-3/84 (TEN-B-232/84) Pune dated 24-9-1984, (3) the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur Division, Solapur in TENANCY/ADM. APPL. NO. 9/85, BARSHI-TRUST, BARSI, and (4) the order passed by the Collector, Solapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 2/85 dated 25/2/86.

(2.) THE facts need to be stated for the purposes of unfolding the matter and giving the exact idea of the grievance expressed by the Petitioners. THE Petitioners happened to be the trustees of a mosque at Barsi known as Makka Masjid Trust, Barsi?. It owns land bearing Gat No. 433 admeasuring 4 hactares and 49 Ares situated at village Soundare, Taluka Barsi, District Solapur. THE trustees applied for certificate under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act for convenience). THE Assistant Collector, Solapur Division, Solapur dealt with the said application which was numbered as 35/83. THE learned Assistant Collector rejected the said application by order dated 29. 2. 1984 holding that the petitioners have not proved the purpose for which all of the expenditure of the said trust was made. THE said trustees, the present petitioners, moved a revision petition against the said order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune which was numbered as Revision Application No. MRT-SH-IX-3/84 (TEN-B-232/84), Pune. THE said revision application was heard and decided by designated Member of M. R. T. who dismissed the same summarily by his judgment and order dated 24. 9. 1984 holding that the enquiry under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act is mainly between the Collector and the Trust and it being an administrative order, the revision was not maintainable. After this judgment and order, the present Petitioners moved another application before the Assistant Collector, Solapur making a prayer to him to modify his previous order dated 29. 2. 1984. THE Assistant Collector, Solapur dismissed the said application by holding that he did not have the same jurisdiction and the power. THE present Petitioners thereafter filed an application to Collector, Solapur making a prayer to revise the said order which was passed by the Assistant Collector, Solapur. THE Collector, Solapur dismissed the said application by holding that he did not have the said power and, therefore, the Petitioners filed this writ petition for invoking the jurisdiction and power of this Court in view of the Constitution of India. THE petition was admitted for final hearing by issuing the rule on 1. 9. 1988.

(3.) THE Assistant Collector was, therefore, misdirected for considering the income of the said trust and it is expedient because in addition to the words used in the said application, the Petitioners annexed audit report of the accounts of the said trust which showed that out of its income of Rs. 12587/-, Rs. 3244/- were spent on paying taxes, Rs. 103/- on audit fees, Rs. 613/- on Court expenses, Rs. 6258/- on establishment expenses. THE Assistant Collector held that the expenses on establishment were not proved as no witness was examined on that point. Be that as it may, but apart from that, the bare reading of items of expenditure shows that whatever expenses were incurred were on those major items and the item of expenditure on establishment included the expenditure of salaries of teachers and priests. It also indicated that the said expenditure was incurred on religions purpose of worship. Unfortunately, the Assistant Collector rejected the prayer for granting the certificate and further the petitioners moved an application to M. R. T. invoking its revisional jurisdiction for correcting the said error. THE Member of M. R. T. held that the revision application was not maintainable and said revision application was dismissed. THE misfortune did not stop here only. THE Petitioners further moved an application for modification of the previous order before the Assistant Collector, Solapur who held that he did not have the said jurisdiction or the power to do so. He dismissed the application. THE Petitioners further moved an application to the Collector, Solapur for correcting the said order passed by the Assistant Collector in second round. THE said application was also dismissed. It is pertinent to note that in between these rounds, no where the petitioners pressed this point that the said trust happens to be an institution of religious worship and on account of that they lingered on in the arena of litigation for number of years. THEy invited all these things by their mistakes and errors.