Case: Ramswarup Guru Chhote Balakdas Vs. Motiram Khandu Patil &amp; Others

by notification specify the date on which the provisions of the Act shall apply to any public trust or any class of public trusts and different dates may be specified for such trusts in different areas. Under Sections 18 and 19 a trustee of a public trust, to which the Act has been applied, is obliged to make an applicator for registration of the public trust giving in such application the information specified therein. Under Section 19, the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under the Act has to make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for ascertaining the various matters set out therein. On completion of such inquiry and on its findings being recorded the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner has under S. 21 to make entries in the register kept under S. 17 in accordance with the findings recorded by him under sec. 20 or if appeals are preferred in accordance with the final decision of the competent authority provided by the Act, and such entries are made conclusive subject to the provisions of the Act or to any change recorded under the provisions thereinafter following. Before its amendment in 1960, S. 28 provided that all public trusts registered under any of the enactments specified in Schedule A thereto shall be deemed to have been registered under the Act from the date on which the Act is applied to them. Schedule A sets out those Acts which are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. As a result of reorganisation of the then Bombay State and the territorial changes made in l956 and 1960 certain areas were excluded and certain other areas were brought into the new State of Maharashtra. The legislature of that State therefore amended S. 28 by S. 15 of the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, 6 of 1960. A new Schedule amongst other things - viz., Schedule AA, was added after Schedule A which included amongst other Acts the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The effect of S. 28 and the insertion of Schedule AA in the Act was that the trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, were deemed to have been registered under the Bombay Act. The amendment became necessary as new areas which originally formed part of the Madhya Pradesh State were brought into the Maharashtra State and the policy of the legislature was to save trusts already registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 from having to be once again registered under the Bombay Act. The amendment Act, l960 was brought into force as from January 1, 1961. By a notification dated January 31, 1961 issued under Section 1 (4) the Act was made applicable to certain kinds of trusts. It is not in dispute that the present trust is one of the kinds of trusts to which the Act was made applicable as from February 1, 1961. The said notification runs as follows :"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 1 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.... the Government of Maharashtra specifies the 1st day of February l961 to be the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall, ......apply to the following classes of public trusts......in the State to which the Act does not already apply."6. The question is whether Section 28 can be said to apply to the present Trust. Though Section 28 is couched in general terms it cannot mean that all trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act are to be deemed to be registered under the Bombay Act irrespective of whether they are still situate in Madhya Pradesh and are liable to be administered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The aforesaid notification itself makes this clear by using the words "shall apply to the following classes of public trusts in the State to which the Act does not already apply......" These words indicate clearly that the Act is to apply to those trusts which as a result of the re-organisation of the State have come within the new State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Act did not apply. Therefore, the Act cannot apply and is not intended to apply to trusts which are still outside the State and within the Madhya Pradesh State. There can therefore be no doubt that such trusts in spite of the general language of Section 28 would still be governed by and administered under the Madhya Pradesh Act.If Section 28 were to be construed, as the appellant desires us to construe, there would be the anomalous position that the authorities under both the Acts can claim the right to supervise and control the administration and management of the trust properties. The curious result of such a construction would be that though the trust is situate and is administered at Burhanpur in Madhya Pradesh the authorities under the Bombay Act can claim to control its management.7. There is no dispute that the trust is administered at Burhanpur and the bulk of its properties, except the three pieces of lands situate in the District of Dhulia, are all situate in the Madhya Pradesh State.The fact that a part of its property is situate in Maharashtra State, though the trust is within Madhya Pradesh State, would not mean that the trust would be governed partly by the Madhya Pradesh Act and partly by the Bombay Act. Such a division of the Trust and its administration is not contemplated by either of the two Acts. It is therefore clear that the present Trust does not fall within the ambit of Section 28 and is not one of those trusts which can be deemed to be registered under the Bombay Act. That being so, it is obviously not a trust which fulfils the second condition of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the appellant cannot be said to be entitled to the certificate under that section.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Thus for eligibility for an exemption certificate three conditions have to be satisfied: (1) that the land in question is the property of a trust or an institution for public religious worship, (2) that the trust is or is deemed to be registered underthe Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and (3) that the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust. There is no dispute with regard to conditions (1) andall the three conditions are satisfied and a certificate is obtained by the trust under sub-section (2) of S. 88-B, Ss. 32 to 32R would not apply to the land belonging to such trust and the tenant of such land cannot be regarded a deemed purchaser under theis not in dispute that the present trust is one of the kinds of trusts to which the Act was made applicable as from February 1,Section 28 is couched in general terms it cannot mean that all trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act are to be deemed to be registered under the Bombay Act irrespective of whether they are still situate in Madhya Pradesh and are liable to be administered underthe Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The aforesaid notification itself makes this clear by using the words "shall apply to the following classes of public trusts in the State to which the Act does not already apply......" These words indicate clearly that the Act is to apply to those trusts which as a result of the re-organisation of the State have come within the new State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Act did not apply. Therefore, the Act cannot apply and is not intended to apply to trusts which are still outside the State and within the Madhya Pradesh State. There can therefore be no doubt that such trusts in spite of the general language of Section 28 would still be governed by and administered under the Madhya Pradesh Act.If Section 28 were to be construed, as the appellant desires us to construe, there would be the anomalous position that the authorities under both the Acts can claim the right to supervise and control the administration and management of the trust properties. The curious result of such a construction would be that though the trust is situate and is administered at Burhanpur in Madhya Pradesh the authorities under the Bombay Act can claim to control its management.7. There is no dispute that the trust is administered at Burhanpur and the bulk of its properties, except the three pieces of lands situate in the District of Dhulia, are all situate in the Madhya Pradesh State.The fact that a part of its property is situate in Maharashtra State, though the trust is within Madhya Pradesh State, would not mean that the trust would be governed partly by the Madhya Pradesh Act and partly by the Bombay Act. Such a division of the Trust and its administration is not contemplated by either of the two Acts. It is therefore clear that the present Trust does not fall within the ambit of Section 28 and is not one of those trusts which can be deemed to be registered under the Bombay Act. That being so, it is obviously not a trust which fulfils the second condition of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the appellant cannot be said to be entitled to the certificate under that section.