(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Pune dated March 7, 1986 in revision No. MRT. NS/iii/7/84 (TEN. B. 70/84) Pune. Briefly stated, this Petition emanates from the application preferred by the Respondent No. 5 Trust for issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to land bearing Survey No. 383 situated at aundh, Taluka Khatau, District Satara admeasuring about 30 acres and 21 gunthas, which included 0. 22 gunthas, potkharaba land. The Petitioner claims to be tenant in respect of the suit land. It is his case that he was in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers day i. e. 1st April 1957 and has become deemed purchaser. Indeed, if exemption certificate under Section 88b of the Act was to be issued in favour of the Trust, the claim of petitioner having become deemed purchaser, cannot be countenanced because such a claim will be subject to the outcome of the decision on application under Section 88b of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the Respondent No. 5 Trust is that it was initially a private Trust, but was subsequently, registered as a Public Trust and was eligible for issuance of exemption certificate in respect of the suit land. It is not necessary to advert to other proceedings in relation to the suit land because the limited issue that needs to be examined is whether the suit land complies with the requirement of Section 88b of the Act, so as to entitle the Trust for certificate under that provision. The said application under Section B8b-of the Act was filed on 30th September 1972 by one ramchandra Dnyanu Ghole claiming to be the power of attorney of one Shripadrao Pant Pratinidhi, who was the wahivatdar trustee of Respondent No. 5 Trust. The Collector, by his order dated January 23, 1974 allowed the said application and proceeded to issue exemption certificate in relation to the suit land. Against the said decision, Petitioner filed revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, which was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh enquiry by Judgment and Order dated november 5, 1974. It is the case of the Petitioner that the remand was with direction to the first authority to do as follows : (1) To issue public notice inviting claim in respect of suit land. (2) To give opportunity to all concerned, including the Petitioner. (3) To examine the question of title of the trust in respect of suit land as the record indicated that some private individuals were also claiming to be owners. (4) To examine whether the Trust was ready to accept the Petitioner as tenant. (5) To examine whether the power of attorney in favour of said Ramchandra Ghole was proper and whether the conditions incorporated in Section 88b as well as rule 2 are complied with. (6) To include land belonging to Trust for fresh enquiry under Section 88b.
(2.) PURSUANT to the remand order by the tribunal, the Tenancy Awwal Karkun recorded statements of some persons and forwarded papers to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional officer on examining the said evidence, proceeded to grant exemption certificate in favour of the respondent No. 5 Trust by Judgment and Order dated january 16, 1984. This decision was questioned by the Petitioner by filing Revision before the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment and order dated march 7, 1986. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the aforesaid concurrent view taken by the two authorities below. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that although two authorities have proceeded to decide the matter in favour of the Trust, both the authorities have committed jurisdictional error in having failed to examine the core issue as to whether the suit land bearing Survey No. 383 was the property of the Trust as on 1st April 1957, which will be the relevant date for deciding the controversy in issue; and secondly whether the entire income of such land bearing Survey No. 383 was appropriated for the purposes of the Trust. It is, however, conceded that the Trust has been registered prior to 1st april 1957 as Public Institution for public religious worship. It is, therefore, contended that the authorities below have committed manifest error and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in deciding the aforesaid aspects before issuing the exemption certificate and recording satisfaction on those points was sine-qua-non for issuance of exemption certificate. It is contended that if the Trust failed to get exemption certificate under Section 88b of the Act, the petitioner being in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers day, would become deemed purchaser on list April 1957. Accordingly, on the above argument, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the view taken by the two authorities below.
(3.) ON the other hand, Counsel for the respondent No. 5 Trust who alone has appeared before this Court and is the contesting Respondent, contends that there is no infirmity either in the approach or the conclusion reached by the two authorities below, which would warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He submit that there is ample evidence an record to substantiate the conclusion reached by the authorities below that the property in question bearing Survey No. 383 is the property of the Respondent No. 5 Trust. He submits that even on the second aspect as to whether the entire income of the suit land was being appropriated for the purposes of the Trust, both the authorities below have recorded finding of fact on evaluating the evidence on record in favour of the Trust, which will not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in a. I. R. 1968 Bom. 198 in the case of Paygonda survgonda Patil and Ors. v. Jingonda Surgonda patil and Ors. Reliance is placed on observations in para 18 of this decision that even if the authorities below have erred in law in deciding the matter in favour of Respondent No. 5 Trust, even then, in the interest of justice, this Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to undo the said decision on some grounds raised before this Court. It was next contended that original Respondent nos. 3 and 4 in this Petition were necessary parties, whereas, after the death of the said respondents, their heirs and legal representatives have not been brought on record which has resulted in. abatement of proceedings qua them. It is contended that in the fact situation of the present case, it will have to be held that the entire proceedings have abated. To support this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of our High Court reported in 2002 (3) Mh. L. J. 507 in the case of Annabai Devram Kini and Ors. vs. Mithilal Daisangar Singh and Ors. and also on the decision reported in 1998 (1) Mh. L. J. 928 in the case of Sheela wd/o Vijay Choudhari and Ors. vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. and that of Supreme court in AIR 1973 SC204 in the case of Babu sukhram Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and Ors. to support the above contention.