1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.463 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.3350 of 1993 (Decided) (Shri Gopaldas Deosthan, Bhidi v. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner. Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for Respondents. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 25 th January, 2008 1. By this application, the applicant/petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 30-11-2006 passed by this Court rejecting the petition on the ground that this Court had overlooked the mandate of Section 47(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961. Clause (a) of Section 47(2) of the said Act enables the Collector to insist that a Public Trust, like the petitioner, would spend major portion of its income from the lands exempted from operation of Ceiling Laws for charitable purpose within a period of two years from the date of 2 publication of order granting exemption. 2. The learned Advocate for the applicant-Trust states that since no such order has been published, there was no occasion for the Trust to spend major portion of income for charitable purpose and, therefore, there was no reason for the State to refuse exemption. 3. The learned AGP for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the Trust had furnished an undertaking on 4-2-1976 specifically stating therein that it would ensure that the major portion of income from the lands, within a period of two years from the appointed date, i.e. 7-8-1975, would be appropriated for medical or education purpose. Now having given this undertaking and having not spent more than Rs.200/- per year in the past 33 years, it will not be open for the Trust to insist on the technicality of the publication of a notification granting exemption to it. Had the Trust complied with the undertaking, the State would not have been in a position to refuse exemption, since, after the Trust had put itself in a jeopardy by not spending major portion of income, the State could not go back on the question of grant of exemption. 3 4. In view of this, the judgment dated 30-11-2006 of this Court does not call for any modification. The review application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Judge. pdl