KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN versus MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 19-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

936 
KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS. 
August 19, 1969 
(J.C. SHAH, ACTISG C.J., V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
(Vldarbha Region) Act, 
195~. 2(12) Explanation I, ss. "36" and 38-Expremon "to cultivate• 
ptrsorrolly"-Scope of-I/ a Sansthan or private religious trust entitled to 
recol'er possession of agricu!tu .. al land f(lr "personal cultivation". 
The appellant Sansthan. a private reli!lious tru<t. derived most ell ita 
C 
incom1 from cndoY•cd agricultural land. The fourlh respondent was a 
tenant of a part of the land. 
A notice was served on him on behalf of 
the appellant in January 1961 under s. 38 of !he Bomhay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 
19~S. to give up possession 
of the land as it was required bv the Sansthan for personal cultivation. As 
the notice was not complied with, the appellant made an application under 
s. 36 which was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar. The S.D.O. as well as 
the first respondent Revenue Tribunal, confirmed lhis ordc ... The appellant 
D 
rhere~fter filed a petilion in the High Coon under Art. 227 but rhis was 
dismissed. 
In appeal to !his Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that under Explanation I in s. 2( 12) of the Act a person who is subject 
to any physical or mental disability shall be deemed to cultivate the land 
personally if it is cultivate\! by the servants or by hired labou'rers; as an 
idol or a Sansthan that would fall v.·ithin the meaning of the word "person· 
E 
can well be regarded to be subject to a physical or mental disability and 
land can be cullivated on irs behalf by servants or hired labourers, 
by 
virtue of Explanation I the idol would be in the same position Fl.i a minor 
and it can cul!ivate the land personally within the meaning of s. 2(12). 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal, 
(i) There wa.s no 'force in the contention that the case of the appellant 
fell within faplanalion I in s. 2(12). Physical or menial disability as d&-
fined by s. 2(22), Jays emphasis on the words "personal labour or super-
vision". 
In other words the intention 
is that the cultivation of the land 
concerned mu•t be by natural pmon• and not bv legal pmons. [939 E] 
Shri Kesheoraj Deo 
Sansthan. 
Karania v. Bapuraa 
Deoba &: Ors. 
[1964] :l.fah L.J. 589, 593, relied upon. 
(ii) Neither proyisions of Bcrar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 
1951 nor of the Bombay Public Trustc; Act could be of any assistance to 
the appellants. In the present case it 'A'as common ground that the Sansthan 
was a private trust and y..·as not governed by the provisions of the Bombay 
Public Trusts Act. The manager of the Wahiwatdar of the SanSlhan could 
not, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in 
s. 2(18 l of the Act. [940 F-FJ 
/1hwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal <l Ors., 
[19681 3 S.C.R. 
441. refeinod to. 
F 
G 
H 
KALANXA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Grover, J.) 
937 
A 
(iii) There was no fOrce in the contention that the provisions of the 
Act which had the effect of debarring the appellant from ciaiming posses-
sioP. for personal cultivation were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) di 
the Constitution. The Act is rendered immune from attack on these 
grounds in view of the provisions of Article 31(A) 
of the Constitution. 
1941 A-Bl 
B 
c 
Shri Mahadw Palkaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. The State of Bombay, [19621 
1 S.C.R. 733 and Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, 
[1959] Supp. 1 $,C.R. 489, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLj\TB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special foave from the order dated April 8, 1965 of 
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Letters Patent Appeal 
No. 40 of 1965. 
W. S. Bar/ingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the 
appellant. 
M. S. K. Sastriand S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 
B 
5. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. Veerappa, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment 6f the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition under 
Art. 227 of the Constitution which had been filed by appellant 
Sans than. 
. 
The appellant is a private religious Tmst which is managed 
by Laxman Anant Mulay who is described as a Wahiwatdar 
(Manager). 
The main source of income for performing the 
several acts including the daily worship of the family deity ( Shri 
Kalanka Devi) is stated to be derived from endowed agr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.