wp5249.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5249/2011 Ramkrushna Tulashiram Solanke and others -vs- Dharmal Sansthan Sasan Rampur, thr. Its Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri P. Y. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.11.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The authorities have concurrently held that the respondent-trust was entitled to the grant of certificate under Section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. The authorities came to a conclusion that the conditions for grant of certificate under Section 129 (b) of the Act had been fulfilled in this case. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no evidence to show that the trust was formed for educational and other charitable purposes is liable to be rejected, as it is observed by the authorities that the fields in question were owned by the public trust for educational institution, hospital, goshala, etc. and the respondent wanted to utilize the income of the fields for such purposes. The authorities came to a conclusion that since the petitioners had not paid any rent to the respondent, the respondent was unable wp5249.11.odt 2/2 to fulfill the objects of the trust. The judgment reported in 1980 Mh. L.J. 699 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. So also the judgment reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 22 also cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as the petitioners were not paying any rent to the respondent and hence, the trust could not have proved that the amount paid by the petitioners was utilized by the respondent for educational and other charitable purposes. There was evidence on record to show that the income which the respondent-trust may have secured from the petitioners would have been utilized by the respondent for fulfilling the objects of the trust. The findings recorded by the authorities are based on the evidence on record and the same call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE