1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3583 of 2009 Baban Khandu Saikar & ors. ... Petitioners versus Mahatma Phule Vasatigrah & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.A.B.Avhad for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 17h June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 26th April 2000 passed by Dy. Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune, Sub- Division granting exemption certificate to the respondent no.1 trust u/s. 88B of Bombay Tenant and Agricultural Lands Act (for short “BT & AL Act”) 3. The petitioner had initially challenged the order by filing the Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By its order dated 14th November 2008, the Tribunal has dismissed the 2 revision application on the ground that the revision was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was pursuing alternative remedy bonafidely believing that order was revisable, the delay is satisfactorily explained. I would therefore proceed to consider this petition on merits. 4. There is no dispute that the suit land belongs to the respondent no.1 trust. There is also not dispute between the parties that respondent no.1 Trust is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act,1950 and the petitioner is in possession of the land as a tenant of the respondent no.1 trust. According to the petitioner, however, the respondent no.1 trust is not entitled to an exemption because income of the suit land is not used for the purposes of the trust. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 88 provides that certain provisions of the BT & AL Act will not apply to the lands which are the property of a trust for an educational purpose, a hospital, a Panjrapole, a Gaushala or an institution fot public religious worship. Proviso to clause (b) says that the exemption would not apply unless the trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the entire income of such land is appropriated for the purposes of the trust. 4. The trust was initially registered with an object “to manage education of English college for poor and deserving students and manage their lodging and boarding at ordinary rates”. The object clause was later amended to provide additional objects which include “making a provision for poor, deserving and clever students facilities for residence and if possible also to provide for their meals at subsidised 3 rates.” Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment in the objects was effected in the year 1983 i.e. after 1st April 1957 when the petitioner became deemed purchaser under section 324 of the B.T & A.L Act and therefore the amendment cannot be looked into for the purpose of a grant of the certificate. Even if the contention is accepted, it may be noticed that in original object clause itself was “to provide education of English college and lodging and boarding at ordinary rates for poor and deserving students”. The resp trust was using the income for providing hostel to poor and downtrodden and persons belonging to backward classes. Students belonging to poor and backward classes living in villages come to cities like Pune were the trust runs a hostel for the purpose of better and higher education. They cannot afford rented accommodation at market rates. They depend upon hostels and that too at the subsidized rates. Providing residential facility to a student coming from upcountry in the city for the purpose of education, in a broader sense can be regarded as a part of the education and an educational purpose. It therefore cannot be said that income from the land is not utilized for the purpose of the trust for education. There is no merit in the petition which is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)