1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 246/2011 in WRIT PETITION NO.4905/2010 (D) (Adinath Swami Sanstha, Morshi and others .vs. S.D.O. Morshi and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. T.R. Kankale, AGP for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents no.2 and 3. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 29, 2011 Heard. The Trust is in appeal before us challenging order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4905/2010 on 5.4.2011. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the writ petition should have been adjourned and its remand to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for consideration along with challenge raised by it seeking exemption certificate is unnecessary. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court (learned Single Judge) in the case of Maroti Sansthan .vs. Gulab Haribhau reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 367 to point out that it is only existence of trust which is sufficient. It is further contended that before learned Single Judge, respondents also raised a 2 challenge to tenability of the revision and that challenge has been kept open before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondents no. 2 and 3 supports the impugned order. We have noted that as on today there is no exemption certificate given under Section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 in favour of the appellants and those proceedings are pending before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has found it proper to place controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 4905/2010 relating to determination of purchase price back before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for consideration along with the issue of entitlement to exemption certificate. The controversies involved are not concluded either way. We, therefore, do not see any error in the approach. L.P.A. rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai