-: 1 :- wp- 10056/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10056 OF 2010 Ganeshpuri Trust & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Ms. Shilpa Mangale for the petitioners. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for R-5 & 6. Mr. Abhinadan Vaghyani, AGP for R-1 to 3. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : July 22, 2011. P. C. [Per Ranjit More, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the compilation of writ petition alongwith annexures thereto and affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.3. Petitioner no.1 is the Trust duly registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951 and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the trustees. The petitioners claim that the land bearing Gat No. 216/1 and 216/2 at Karmala, District Solapur [hereinafter for short referred to as “the said property”] belongs to petitioner no.1 trust. They further claim that the said property was originally owned by one Ganeshpuri and said Ganeshpuri srp -: 2 :- wp- 10056/10 bequeathed the said property in favour of petitioner–Trust. It was also claimed that father of respondent nos. 5 & 6, i.e., Shrawandas Rathod had made an application to the Charity Commissioner in the year 1952 and after due enquiry, petitioner no.1 Trust was registered. The said property was included in the Schedule of properties owned by the petitioner – Trust. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that though the said property belongs to the Trust, respondent nos. 5 & 6 are illegally developing the said property. Therefore, petitioners have sought directions to respondent no.4 – Municipal Council not to grant any permission for development of whatsoever nature pertaining to the said land. The directions are also claimed against respondent nos.2 & 3, namely, the Collector and Tehsildar to correct the revenue record as per the orders passed by the Tenancy Authority. 3. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6 vehemently opposed the writ petition. They claimed that petitioner – Trust has no concern with the said property, inasmuch as respondent nos. 5 & 6 have become owner in a proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -: 3 :- wp- 10056/10 [for short “BT&AL Act”] and thereafter certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act is also issued in their favour. 4. Having considered submissions of the rival parties and having gone through pleadings of the parties, we find no merit in the petition. The name of the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos.5 & 6 was shown as tenant in the said property since 1951-52 to 1981-82. The respondents in this regard relied upon the document annexed at Exhibit-A to the affidavit- in-reply of respondent no.3. In that view of the matter, the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos.5 & 6 has become deemed tenant on Tillers date, i.e., on 1/4/1957. It is further apparent that L.A.T. and Tehisldar, Karmala initiated the proceedings for fixation of purchase price in the year 1977. The purchase price was also fixed under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. Thereafter, Tehsildar issued certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act in favour of respondent nos.5 & 6. The certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act is the conclusive proof of respondent nos. 5 & 6’s ownership. The petitioners could not point anything on record which would show that certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act is set aside by any competent authority. 5. In the year 1988, Respondent nos.5 & 6 had filed an -: 4 :- wp- 10056/10 application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur for deleting the said property from the schedule of properties of the petitioner – Trust in view of the grant of certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act in favour of respondent nos. 5 & 6. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, vide its order dated 5/7/1995 deleted the said property from the schedule-A of the petitioner – Trust. This order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner is subsequently confirmed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 11/5/2000. 6. Be that as it may, in the year 1988 respondent nos.5 & 6 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.228 of 1988 for permanent injunction restraining petitioner nos.2 to 5 from interfering with and disturbing their peaceful possession in the suit property. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karmala by its judgment and decree dated 29/3/1994 decreed the suit of respondent nos.5 & 6 and petitioner nos.5 & 6 were restrained permanently from disturbing possession of respondent nos.5 & 6 in the said property. The appeal of petitioner nos.2 to 5 against the said order being Appeal No. 200 of 1994 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge by its judgment and decree dated 25/9/1996. 7. The petitioners thereafter again filed another suit, being -: 5 :- wp- 10056/10 Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 2001 against respondent nos. 5 & 6 for declaration that decree in R.C.S. No. 288 of 1988 is obtained by practicing fraud upon the Court. This suit was also dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division by its order dated 18/11/2002. Appeal No. 13 of 2005 filed by the petitioners against the above order before the District Judge was also dismissed on 14/3/2008. 8. Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, we find that respondent nos. 5 & 6 have become owner of the said property by virtue of certificate under section 32-M of the BT&AL Act. The said property no longer remains in the Schedule-I of petitioner no.1–Trust. In the civil suit, respondent nos. 5 & 6 are found to be in possession of the said property. Thus, the petitioners have no locus to claim any relief against the respondents. The petition is without any merit and substance and is therefore dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.) (Ranjit More, J.)