DATTATRAYA SAKHARAM YEOLE Vs. HAFEEZ MUNORODDIN HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, in substances takes exception to the order dated June 6, 1981, passed by the Sub divisional Officer, Nasik Sub Division Nasik in Tenancy application No. 1 of 1981. Briefly stated, the land in question is Survey No. 726 within Municipal limits of nasik. The land is owned by the respondent- Trust. The said Trust is duly registered Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, The respondents, therefore, filed application for grant of exemption under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1947 in respect of the Suit lands. That application has been allowed by the impugned order. Against this decision, the petitioner carried the matter in revision which was, however, dismissed as not maintainable. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as to whether such revision was maintainab1e or not be cause this Writ Petition has been admitted as back as on 30th August 1982. As mentioned earlier, in substance, this Writ Petition questions the correctness of the decision dated June 6,1981 passed by the Sub Divisiona1 officer.

(2.) THE first contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no clear finding recorded by the authority as to the purpose for which the Trust has been duly registered under the provisions of the bombay Public Trusts Act. According to him, it is only those public Trusts which are registered for educational purpose, hospitals, panjarpol, gaushala or for public re1igious worship wou1d qualify for exemption under section 88-B of the Act. It is next contended that even the finding recorded by the authority on the issue as to whether the entire income of the suit land is appropriated for the purposes of the Trust cannot be sustained. On the above arguments, learned counsel submits that the order under appeal be set aside.

(3.) ALTHOUGH respondents have been served, they had initially entered appearance through Mr. N. S. Shastri. Mr. Shastri is present in Court, but he states that the respondents have now engaged Mr. A. R. Shaikh, without obtaining his no objection. He submits that he has no instructions to appear in the matter. Although vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. A. R. Shaikh without obtaining no objection from Mr. Shastri,he is not present when the matter is called out for hearing.