( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 1993 1. Deorao Jaiwanta Hume 2. Baban Gajaba Hume 3. Shankar Babu Hume All r/o Mirajgaon, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Shri Bharati Math, Mirajgaon, through its alleged Chief Trustee Simratmal Mohanlal Bhandari, R/o Mirajgaon, Tq. Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat Division, Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra 4. Uttam Gana Hume. 5. Bhimrao Gana Hume 6. Laxman Gana Hume 7. Pandurang Dada Hume 8. Kusum Kisan Tarte 9. Shalan Gana Hume 10. Bhagchand Babu Hume 11. Kashinath Babu Hume Nos. 4 to 11 R/o Mirajgaon, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 12. Charity Commissioner (M.S.), 3rd Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay – 18 RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.S. Bora, advocate holding for Mr. S.C. Boar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 12. .... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 29th January, 1993, rendered by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat whereby and whereunder application preferred by the respondent No. 1 – Trust seeking exemption under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “the BT&AL Act) came to be allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the contention of the petitioners is that the lands in question are owned by the respondent No.1 – Trust and were held by them or their purchasers as tenants. Their names were duly recorded in the revenue record as tenants. They were entitled to seek statutory ownership in as much as they were in actual possession of the said land on the tiller’s day. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No. 1 erroneously sought exemption under section 88 of the BT&AL Act with a view to avoid recognition of their tenancy claims. They submitted that only the Collector is empowered to grant certificate of exemption after due enquiry, yet, the Sub- Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector entertained the ( 3 ) application and issued the exemption certificate without holding proper enquiry as contemplated under the law. The petitioners’ contention, therefore, is that the impugned order vitiated as the learned Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. 4. It appears that the jurisdictional issue was raised by the petitioners before the learned Sub Divisional Officer. It appears further that the respondent No. 1 – Trust is duly registered on 12th March, 1955 and the lands in question are shown in the P.T. register. The respondent No. 1 is a religious Trust. Section 88-B of the BT&AL Act reads as follows : “88B. Exemption or certain provisions to land of local authorities, universities and trusts. - (1) Nothing in foregoing provisions except sections 3, 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 11, 13 and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above shall apply, (a) to lands held or leased by a local authority, or University established by law in the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra; and (b) to lands which are the property of a trust for ( 4 ) an educational purpose, a hospital, Panjarapole, Gaushala or an institution for public religious worship; Provided that, - (i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and (ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purpose of such trust; (c) to lands assigned or donated by any person before the 1st day of August, 1956 for the purpose of rendering any of the following services useful to the community, namely;- maintenance of water works, lighting or filling of water troughs for cattle. (d) to lands taken under management temporarily by the Civil, Revenue or Criminal Courts by themselves, or through receivers appointed by them, till the decision of the title of rightful holders; Provided that, from the date on which the land referred to in clause (d) is released from management, all the foregoing provisions of the Act shall apply thereto, but subject to the notifications that in the case of a tenancy, not being a permanent tenancy, which on that date subsists in the land, (i) the landlord shall be entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 (or under section 33B in the case of a certificated landlord) within one year from such date; and (ii) within one year from the expiry of the period during which the landlord or certificated landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy as aforesaid, the tenant shall have the right to purchase the land under section 32 (or under section 33-C in the case of an excluded tenant and (iii)the provisions of sections 31 to 31-D (both inclusive) (or sections 33-A and 33-B in the case of a certificated landlord and sections 32 to 32-R, (both inclusive) for sections 33A and 33-C in the case of an excluded tenant) shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to the termination of a tenancy or the right to purchase the land, as aforesaid; Provided further that, - (a) in the case of a permanent tenancy the permanent tenant shall be entitled to purchase the land held by him on permanent tenancy, ( 5 ) (i) within one year from the date on which the estate or land is released from management, or (ii) where such estate or land was released from management after the Tillers’ day but before the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1960, within one year from such commencement, and (b) where such permanent tenant is desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under this proviso, he shall accordingly inform the landlord and Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the said period of one year and the provisions of sections 32 to 32-R shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to the right of the permanent tenant to purchase the land. (2) For the purpose of this section, a certificate granted by the Collector, after holding an inquiry, that the conditions in the proviso to sub-section (1) are satisfied by any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that behalf.” 5. It is not necessary to hold such enquiry as contemplated under section 88B likewise an adversarial trial. The Collector is required to hold an enquiry in order to find out whether the Trust is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and whether the entire income of the lands in question is appropriate for the purpose of the Trust. The scope of such enquiry is, therefore, restricted to the above two (2) issues. It is explicit that such enquiry is required to be conducted in order to verify whether the purpose of seeking the exemption certificate is bonafide, or the exemption certificate is sought with ulterior motive to siphon the money for private use under the so called ( 6 ) exemption. It is rather an inquisitive enquiry as such. It is true, no doubt, that the enquiry is conducted in the present case by the Deputy Collector (Sub-Divisional Officer). The definition of expression “Collector” as used in section 2 (2E) reads as follows : “2 (2E) “Collector” includes an Assistant or Deputy Collector performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, or any other officer specially empowered by the State Government to perform the functions of the Collector under this Act.” Needless to say, the definition of the word “Collector” is expanded to include Assistant or Deputy Collector or any other officer so empowered to discharge the duties of the Collector under the BT&AL Act. This assignment of work seems to have been done in view of multifarious duties the Collector is required to discharge as head of the Executive over district. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Deputy Collector (Sub Divisional Officer) could not have issued the exemption certificate. The argument that the impugned order is rendered without jurisdiction is, therefore, unacceptable and stands rejected. ( 7 ) 6. So far as the contention that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the learned Sub Divisional Officer depended on the report of the Tahsildar is also not worth the name. It appears that though the petitioners have objected the grant of exemption certificate, yet, they did not specifically demonstrate as to why the respondent NO. 1 – Trust is not eligible to get such exemption certificate under section 88B of the BT&AL Act. The respondent No. 1 did produce the relevant documents which demonstrated that the Trust was duly registered. The trustees adduced the documentary evidence including the audit report in order to show that the income of the lands in question was being appropriated for rendering services to the religious trust. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order is rendered without following due procedure as contemplated under Rule 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956, or that the same is perverse in any manner. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Rule discharged accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1133-1993