SHRI GOPALDAS DEOSTHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Wardha refusing exemption to the appellant-Trust under Section 47(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant holds agricultural land in villages Bhidi, Hasnapur, Fatepur, Huradapur in excess of the ceiling limit of 52 Acres. The appellant-Trust, therefore, applied for exemption under Section 47(2)(a) of the Act for the entire land. The appellant-Trust submitted an undertaking on 04.02.1976 in accordance with Section 47(2)(a) of the Act, that it would appropriate major portion of the income from such land within a period of two years from the date of publication of the order granting exemption. However, the Officer on Special Duty, exercised the powers of Government under Section 47(2)(a) of the Act and rejected the application for exemption on the ground that since 1976, i.e. when the Trust gave an undertaking, it has spent only Rs.200/- for the distribution of text books to the students. Therefore, the Officer on Special Duty held that the Trust has not spent any amount on medical relief and education as required by section 47(2)(a) of the Act, which requires a Trust to appropriate major portion of its income from its land for the purposes of education or medical relief or both. Thus, in effect, the application for exemption was rejected on the ground that a major portion of the income from the land was not appropriated by the Trust for education and medical relief after the Trust gave an undertaking in the year 1976.

(3.) In the writ petition, the learned single Judge upheld the rejection on the ground that the Trust has not spent more than Rs.200/ - and since this amount did not comprise major portion of the income from the land, it is not entitled to exemption. The learned Single Judge further held that Section 47(2) of the Act contemplates an inquiry whether the Trust is entitled to be exempted and only where it is found that it is entitled to exemption, the question of compliance with an undertaking would arise.