LexSMT. LAXMIRAJ S. PATIL AND ORS. versus BADASHAH SULTAN MUTWALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SMT. LAXMIRAJ S. PATIL AND ORS.
v.
.{
BADASHAH SULT AN MUTWALI
MARCH 22, 1995
B
[N. VENKATACHALA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.J
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 :
S.88-B-Exemption Certificate-Income from lands appropriated for
-,. -
c the purposes of the Trust under Condition (ii) of the proviso-Confined to
income from such lands for which exemption certificate sought for and n.ot
from other lands.
Appellants were tenants of some of the lands of a certain Trust of
D
which the Respondent was the Managing Trustee. Respondent made an
application under Rule 52(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Rules, 1956 before the Deputy Collector for grant of exemption
certificate under S.88-B of the Act in respect of its lands on which the
appellants were tenants. The Deputy Collector granted the certificate.
E
On a revision preferred by the appellants, the Revenue Tribunal held
that the exemption certificate should not have been granted when it was
not shown by the Trust that the entire income of all its lands had been
appropriated for the purpose of the Trust as was required by Condition
(ii) of the proviso to clause (b) of Sub-section (i) of S.88-B of the Act.
F Respondent flied a Civil Application which was allowed. Appellants filed
a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the Certificate, and the same was
~-.
dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
"'"-
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
-,.--
G
HELD:l. As seen from the provision in Section 88-b(l) and 88·B(2)
of the Bombay· Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 exemption
certificate could be obtained by a trust in respect of its lands in occupation
~-
of tenants as provided for therein. The object of obtaining such exemption,
having regard to the scheme of the provision, is to allow the Trust to retain
.H the Income of Its lands, even where such lands are given to tenants for
928
)
----...
L.S. PATIL-v. B.S. MUTWALI
929
cultivation. There is no reason why the Trust should ·establish that the A
entire income derived by it from lands other than the lands in respect of
which it seeks exemption certificate, was being appropriated for the Trust.
The entire income .or "such lands" required to be shown to have been
appropriated for purposes of the Trust under Condition (ii) of the proviso
is confined to the income derived lands for which exemption certificate is B
sought by the Trust and not its other lands. [For to hold that the Trust
when applies for exemption certificate· in respect of a few or its lands is
required to establish for satisfying condition (ii) of the proviso that the
entire income derived from all its other lands, would amount to asking the
Trust to establish something which the Legislature could not have in-
C
tended having regard to the fact that such requirement could only by an
unwarranted burden placed on the Trust with no genuine purpose to be
serve by it.] [932-D-GJ
(Condition (ii) of the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub- section(l) of
Section 88-B of the Act, requires a trust which seeks to obtain an exemption D
certificate under Section 88-B of the BT&AT Act in respect ~f certain
lands, to establish before the Collector that the entire income derivable by
it in respect of only such lands for which exemption certificate is sought
was being appropriated for the purposes of the Trust and not the entire
income derivable by it in respect of its other lands for which no exemption E
certificate was sought.) [932-H, 933-AJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 380 of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order 7.11.93 of the Bombay High Court in F
S.C.A. No. 3186 of 1978.
U.R. Lalit, P.H .. Parekh, Uday U. Lalit and E.R. Kumar, with him
for the Appellants.
V.N. Ganpule,V.B. Goshi and AB. Lal, with him for the Respon-
G
dent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Substitution application is allowed.
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 2 S.C.R.
A
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question
B
which arises for our consideration in this appeal relates to requirement of
Condition (ii) of the proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - "The
BT&ALAct".
Respondent is the Managing Trustee of the Hajlirat Pir, Babujmal,
Deosthan Public Trust, Kolhapur. The appellants were tenants of some of
the lands of that Trust under the BT &AL Act. The respondent madeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.