RAJARAMGIRI BABUGIRI GOMAVI Vs. RAJARAMGIRI BABUGIRI GOSAVI

JUDGEMENT

(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 Camp at Kolhapur dated december 23, 1983 in Revision No. MRT-SS-406/1976 (High Court Remand) : Camp-Kolhapur. It is not necessary to reproduce all the events that have resulted in filing of the present Petition. Suffice it to observe that the Petitioners claim to be a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Petitioners claim. . to be the owners in respect of land bearing R. S. No. 1/1. admeasuring 5 acres 11 gunthas. It is not in dispute that the Respondents were cultivating the said land as tenant, since prior to the tillers day. It is in that backdrop, respondents filed application under Section 32-G of the Act before the appropriate Authority for fixation of purchase price of the suit land, being deemed purchasers. The said process ended in favour of the Respondents till the Revisional authority dismissed the Revision vide order dated 2nd January 1981. Against that decision, petitioners carried Writ Petition before this court being Writ Petition No. 2056 of 1981. While the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were pending, Petitioners had. also filed application sometime in 1974, purported to be under section 88-B of the Act. The said application was, however, rejected by the Authority holding that the petitioners did not qualify the requirements of section 88-B of the Act. Against that decision, petitioners had carried Revision before the tribunal, which obviously was not maintainable in view of the reported decision of this Court in the case of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anantrao Pawar v. Kisan namdao Pawar and Ors. reported in 1979 M. L. J. 687.

(2.) Be that as it may, the Revisional authority was pleased to allow the said Revision application filed by the Petitioners. Against that decision, Respondents carried Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 788 of 1979. Both the Writ Petitions pending before this Court eventually came to be disposed of by common judgment and Order dated August 3, 19s2. By that decision; the matter stood remanded to the file of the Revisional Authority for examining the same, in accordance with law. In that sense, the matter which was initiated on the basis of the application filed by the Respondents for fixation of purchase price under Section 32-G of the Act as well as at the instance of the Petitioners pursuant to application under Section 88-B of the Act, was left open to be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Order, has accepted the stand of the Respondents and has found that the petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of provisions of Section 88-B of the Act because it did not fulfil the requirement of the nature of trust as well as the factum that the income derived from the suit lands was appropriated for the purposes of the Trust. On that reasoning, the tribunal held that the Petitioners were not entitled for protection of Section 88-B of the Act and consequently proceeded to hold that the respondents had become deemed, purchaser by virtue of deeming provision on the tillers day and therefore, proceeded to affirm the purchase price determined by the appropriate authority. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

(3.) The first contention canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners is that the question as to whether the Petitioner Trust is a religious, worship trust or not, has been incorrectly decided by the tribunal. It is also contended that the finding reached by the Tribunal that the income derived from the suit lands was not appropriated for the purpose of the Trust; is also unsustainable. It was also contended that the question as to whether the Certificate under Section 88-B of the Act could be issued on favour of the Petitioner Trust, could not have been matter in issue before the Revisional authority as that issue is not open for examination on under Section 76 of the Act; as has been expounded in the decision referred to above. On the above arguments, learned Counsel contends that the judgment under Appeal cannot be sustained and the matter deserves to be remanded for further enquiry if required.