JAGDEORAO ANANDRAO PAWAR Vs. RESPONDENT:KISAN NAMDEO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition questions the order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76, exercising powers of revision, against the certificate Issued by the District Deputy Collector under Section 88-B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That exemption certificate was granted on December 26, 1959 whereby it was certified that the present petitioner trust is an institution for public religious worship and as such is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the entire income of the lands mentioned in the schedule appended is appropriated for the purposes of the trust and thus the conditions to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 88-B are satisfied by the trust. Respondent No. 1 Kisan is concerned with survey Nos. 77, 78 and 83, while respondent No. 2 Shripati is concerned with survey No. 231 of Village Supe, which four survey numbers are included along with other survey numbers in the schedule. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, before whom the question of jurisdiction was raised, allowed the revision mainly on the ground that the Inquiry was held against the back of the applicants and they had no notice of that inquiry and, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for fresh inquiry.

(2.) The first and the foremost question Is whether Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was available to the Tribunal so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the matter of grant of certificate under Section 88-B (2) of the Act.

(3.) As far as the statutory character and the scheme of the provisions of Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are concerned, there is the Division Bench authority of this Court in the case of Manekji Edulji Mistry v. Maneksha Ardeshir Irani, (1973) 75 'Bom LR 609, where the Court observed that the lands belonging to a trust falling under Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 88-B would be exempt from the operation of some of the provisions of the Act, provided such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. and the entire income of such lands to appropriated for the purposes of such trust. In a proceeding where a claim is Bet up to exemption by the trust, what is necessary is to satisfy these two requirements. Sub-section (2) of Section 88-B of the Act indicates and embodies a rule of evidence, in that the certificate granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry is conclusive evidence with regard to the satisfaction of the two requirements. In an appeal from Manekji Edulji Mistry's case taken to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment, the Supreme Court (Maneksha Ardeshir Irani v. Manekji Edulji Mistry. has observed thus: