: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.272 OF 2004 FIRST APPEAL NO.272 OF 2004 FIRST APPEAL NO.272 OF 2004 Raosaheb Mohanlal Chimanlal Maniyar . Trust, Thru’ Sunanda Surendra . Rathi & Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Arya Sangeet Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Bhandari, Advocate, for the Appellants. Mr.Amogh Paralikar, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. The challenge in this First Appeal is to the Judgment and Order dated 28th September, 1988 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner which has been confirmed in an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune. 2. The controversy relates to a property bearing C.T.S. No.1045 and No.1693 of village Bhamburda, Pune in respect of which the 13th respondent had filed Returns under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as : 2 : "the said Act"). The property in dispute was declared as an excess land. By order dated 3rd December, 1978, the property was vested in the State Government under the provisions of the said Act of 1976. 3. The 13th respondent challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the said Act of 1976 by contending that the 1st appellant-Public Trust was created under a Will dated 4th October, 1952 by the late husband of the 13th respondent. The contention of the 13th respondent was that on demise of her husband on 2nd December, 1956, the appellant No.1-Trust came into existence. The Writ Petition filed by the 13th respondent was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23rd August, 1983. Application for review made by the 1st appellant was withdrawn. Thereafter, the present appellants i.e. Trust and trustees filed a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court for challenging the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.952 of 1979. The Apex Court passed following order :- "We have heard counsel for the parties. The following observations in the order dated 20th September, 1985 in Civil Application Number 3065 of 1985 in Writ Petition No.952 of 1970 of the Bombay High Court viz; "The lands which are already allotted to third party cannot be reached. : 3 : With regard to rest of land the petitioner can approach the Government", shall not be treated as conclusive of the rights of the parties. The petition stands disposed of." 4. The property in dispute was initially shown as the property vesting in the 1st appellant-Trust. By order dated 28th September, 1988, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner held that the property in dispute is not the property vesting in the 1st appellant-Trust as the 1st appellant-Trust came into existence on 3rd July, 1981 i.e. after the date on which the said Act of 1976 came into force. The District Court confirmed the said finding. It must be also stated here that in the year 1978, the property in dispute was allotted by the State Government to the 1st respondent which is also a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the issue before the District Court was whether the appellant No.1-Trust came into existence on 2nd December, 1956 or on 3rd July, 1981 (the date on which the Trust was registered). He submitted that the said question which is formulated by the District Court is not at all properly decided. He submitted that the said question was not at all : 4 : academic in as much as if the said question is decided and it is held that the Trust was in fact created on 2nd December, 1956, the appellants will be in position to challenge the order of allotment of the said property in favour of the 1st respondent. He submitted that without considering the material on record, the said issue has been decided by the District Court. He submitted that it is obvious that the date of creation of the Trust is 2nd December, 1956 when the testator died under whose Wiil the Trust was created. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. The 13th respondent submitted Returns under Section 6 of the said Act of 1976. Thereafter, the disputed property was declared as surplus and the said property was vested in the State Government. The orders of the authorities under the said Act of 1976 were challenged by the 13th respondent by filing a Writ Petition in this Court which was rejected. The order passed in the Writ Petition was challenged by the present appellant by filing a Special Leave Petition which has been disposed of by the order which is quoted in earlier paragraph. Thus, in short, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.952 of 1970 upholding the order of vesting in favour of the State : 5 : Government has not been disturbed by the Apex Court. The order of allotment of the disputed land in favour of the 1st respondent-Trust has been made in the year 1978. Till today, no proceedings have been filed by the appellants for challenging the allotment of the disputed property in favour of the 1st respondent. Only remedy reserved by the Apex Court in favour of the appellant was to approach the State Government which option continues to exist even today. 7. It must be also stated here that when the Apex Court decided the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants, the allotment in favour of the 1st respondent was already made. Therefore, it is not necessary to entertain this Appeal which raises a question which has become academic. 8. Even otherwise no case is made out for interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]