BUVASAHEB TATYASAHEB MATHAKARI Vs. YESU KRISHNA KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Civil Application raises a point of interest on the construction of Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

(2.) THE land in dispute is survey No. 43 situated in the village Kameri in Walwa taluka and which was at all material times leased out to opponent No. 1 and was cultivated by him as a tenant. The petitioner contended that the land was his private personal property held in personal Inam. On March 26, 1953, he, therefore, served opponent No. 1 with a notice terminating his tenancy. On June 4, 1954, he filed the present application under Section 34 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricutural Lands Act, 1948, as it stood then, on the ground that the land was bona fide required by him for personal cultivation. Opponent No. 1, while admitting that he had taken the lease from the petitioner, contended that the land was Devasthan Inam land held by a shrine known as Shri Shambhu Appa Dev. The Mamlatdar, however, allowed the application and directed opponent No. 1 to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner. Opponent No. 1 thereupon went in appeal before the Prant Officer, who set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that he was merely aVahiwatdar or a manager of the land in suit, that the legal ownership of the land vested in the Shrine of Shri Shambhu Appa Dev and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to recover possession under Section 34 of the Act and dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal who upheld the decision of the Prant Officer and dismissed the petitioner's revision application. It is against this order of the Revenue Tribunal that the petitioner has presented this Special Civil Application.

(3.) MR . Jahagirdar, who appears for the petitioner, stated to us that in an enquiry held under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has held that the shrine is a public trust and that the land in dispute is the property of the shrine. This decision has also been confirmed in appeal under Section 70 of the Act by the Charity Commissioner and the decision of the Charity Commissioner has again been confirmed by the District Court in an application under Section 72 of the Act. An appeal against that decision has been filed in this Court and that appeal is still pending. Mr. Jahagirdar, however, stated that although that appeal is pending, he is prepared to argue this application on the basis that the land in dispute is the Devasthan property belonging to the Shrine and that the present petitioner is theVahiwatdar or the Manager of that property. The contention of Mr. Jahagirdar is that even on the basis of the land in suit being Devasthan property and the petitioner being only the Vahiwatdar or the Manager thereof, the petitioner would stillbe entitled to maintain his application under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and that if the petitioner were to establish that lie requires the land bona fide and for personal cultivation, he would be entitled to recover the possession of the land in question from opponent No. 1.