1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3296 OF 2006 1.Behram S. Irani & ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i/b. R.M.Vasudeo, for the Petitioners. Mr.Amit Shroff, for Respondent nos.4 to 8, 10 & 11. Ms.Mhaispurkar, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: 4th April, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners who claim to be the beneficiaries of a registered public trust challenge the order passed by the State Government 2 under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Agricultural land (ceiling on holdings) Act. It appears that the proceedings were taken up against the persons who were in possession of the land owned by the Trust for declaring the land surplus under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (ceiling on holdings) Act, and the land was declared as surplus. At this juncture, an application was made on behalf of the trust for granting exemption to the land from the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on holdings) Act. It appears that at that time the board of trustees of the trust passed a resolution proposing to surrender, out of the total land of trust, land admeasuring 449 acres. The application was considered by the Minister of State. It appears that he rejected that application only on the ground that the trust was not in actual possession of the land on the relevant date. That order was challenged before this Court in Writ petition being writ petition no.705 of 1979 which was decided on 6.4.1984. This Court held that on the relevant date the trust was in possession of the land and not the alleged lessees. The Division Bench, therefore, directed the State 3 Government to consider the application for exemption submitted by the Trust. The Division Bench in its judgment noted that there was an agreement arrived at between the trust and the Government where-under the Government was to grant exemption on the condition that land admeasuring 449 acres is to be surrendered to the Government by the Trust. The Trust pursuant to that agreement has passed a Resolution for surrender of the land, even permission of the Charity Commissioner was obtained for surrendering the land to the Government. The application was considered this time by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister granted exemption from the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on holdings) Act; one of the conditions was that the Trust should surrender 449 acres of land to the Government. It is only this condition which is challenged by the petitioners who claim to be the beneficiaries of the Trust. 2. It is an admitted position that there is a resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Trust agreeing to surrender 449 acres of land to the State Government. That Resolution has been 4 specifically referred to in the judgment of this Court referred to above. To this date the petitioners who claim to be the beneficiaries have not challenged that Resolution, therefore, the Resolution of the Trust binds the petitioners who are beneficiaries. Without challenging the validity of that Resolution and obtaining appropriate order setting aside that Resolution, the petitioners cannot challenge the condition imposed by the State Government. The State Government has imposed the condition accepting the offer made by the Trust. This Court in its Judgment referred to above has also observed that not only the Trust has given offer but has also passed a Resolution for surrender of the land, the resolution was also acted upon by making an application to the Charity Commissioner for permission to surrender the land to the State Government. In other words, the Court observed that the offer is binding on the trust. With these observations of the Division bench and as the Resolution of the trust is in-tact, I do not find any fault with the order of the State Government directing the Trust to surrender land admeasuring 5 449 acres. Even assuming that under Section 47 of the Act such a condition could not have been put by the State Government, in my opinion, this Court will not be justified in entertaining such a challenge to the order at the behest of the petitioners who claim to be mere beneficiaries of the Trust. Though they had full knowledge of the resolution and that the Trust has acted pursuant to that Resolution, till this date they have not challenged that Resolution. In my opinion, the Government has done nothing but to accept the offer made by the Trust, that offer has not been challenged by the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the order of the State Government whereby that offer has been accepted. The petition is therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. ---