Case: Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpurl &amp; Ors

in Section 2 (12) of the Act a person who is subject to any physical or mental disability shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if it is cultivated by the servants or by hired labourer. In other words an idol or a Sansthan that would fall within the meaning of the word "person" can well be regarded to be subject to a physical or mental disability and land can be cultivated on its behalf by servants or hired labourers. It is urged that in Explanation (I) the idol would be in the same position as a minor and it can certainly cultivate the land personally within the meaning of Section 2 (12).It is difficult to accept the suggestion that the case of the appellant would fall within Explanation (I) in Section 2 (12). Physical or mental disability as defined by S. 2 (22) lays emphasis on the words "personal labour or supervision". As has been rightly pointed out in Shri Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan, Karanja v. Bapurao Deoba, 1964 Mah LJ 589 in which an identically similar point came up for consideration, the dominating idea of anything done personally or in person is that the thing must be done by the person himself and not by or through someone else.In our opinion the following passage in that judgment at p. 593 explains the whole position correctly:"It should thus appear that the legislative intent clearly is that in order to claim a cultivation as a personal cultivation there must be established a direct nexus between the person who makes such a claim, and the agricultural processes or activities carried on the land. In other words, all the agricultural operations, though allowed to be done through hired labour or workers must be under the labour or workers must be under the direct supervision, control, or management of the landlord. It is in the sense that the word "personal supervision" must be understood. In other words, the requirement of personal supervision under the third category of personal cultivation provided for in the definition does not admit of an inermediary between the landlord and the labourer, who can act as agent of the landlord for supervising the operations of the agricultural worker. If that is not possible in the case of one landlord, we do not see how it is possible in the case of another landlord merely because the landlord in the latter case is a juristic person".In other words the intention is that the cultivation of the land concerned must be by natural persons and not by legal persons.5. It has next been contended that in the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 1951 public trusts of charitable nature were included among those who could claim possession from a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation. It is not possible to see how the provisions of a repealed statute which was no longer in force, after the enactment of the Act, could be of any avail to the appellant. The decision in Ishwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, (1968) 3 SCR 441 = (AIR 1968 SC 1364 ) has also been referred to by the counsel for the appellant. In that case it was said that under Section 2 (18) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act a trustee has been defined as meaning a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager. In view of this definition the properties of the trusts vest in the managing trustee and he is the landlord under Clause 32 of Sec. 2 of the Act. As he is the landlord, he can ask for a surrender from the tenant of the lands of the trust "to cultivate personally". In the present case it is common ground that the Sansthan is a private trust and is not governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The manager or the Wahiwatdar of the Sansthan cannot, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in Section 2 (18) of that Act. It may be mentioned that in Ishwardas case, (1968) 3 SCR 441 = (AIR 1968 SC 1364 ) the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the question whether a manager or a Shebait of the properties of an idol or the manager of the Sansthan can or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands for personal cultivation.The distinction between a manager or a Shebait of an idol and a trustee where a trust has been created is well recognised. The properties of the trust in law vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or a Sansthan they do not vest in the manager or the Shebait.It is the deity or the Sansthan which owns and holds the properties. It is only the possession and the management which vest in the manager.6. It has lastly been contended that the relevant provisions of the Act which have the effect of debarring the appellant from claiming possession for personal cultivation violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. It is urged that discrimination is writ large between animate and juristic persons who fall within the definition of the word "person". Such a contention, however, cannot be entertained in view of Article 31A of the Constitution.The Act had received the assent of the President and is rendered immune for attack or challenge on the ground of violation of Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.In Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. State of Bombay, (1962) 1 SCR 733 = (AIR 1961 SC 1517 ) the constitutional validity of the Act itself was canvassed but the challenge failed. Similarly the validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1956 as applied to Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area was upheld in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, (1959) (Supp) 1 SCR 489 = (AIR 1959 SC 459).

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. Now it is well known that when property is given absolutely for the worship of an idol it vests in the idol itself as a juristic person. As pointed out in Mukherjeas Hindu Law of Religions and Charitable Trust at Pages 142-143 this view is in accordance with the Hindu ideas and has been uniformly accepted in a long series of judicial decisions. The idol is capable of holding property in the same way as a naturalis not possible to see how the provisions of a repealed statute which was no longer in force, after the enactment of the Act, could be of any avail to thethe present case it is common ground that the Sansthan is a private trust and is not governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The manager or the Wahiwatdar of the Sansthan cannot, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in Section 2 (18) of that Act. It may be mentioned that in Ishwardas case, (1968) 3 SCR 441   = (AIR 1968 SC 1364  ) the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the question whether a manager or a Shebait of the properties of an idol or the manager of the Sansthan can or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands for personal cultivation.The distinction between a manager or a Shebait of an idol and a trustee where a trust has been created is well recognised. The properties of the trust in law vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or a Sansthan they do not vest in the manager or the Shebait.It is the deity or the Sansthan which owns and holds the properties. It is only the possession and the management which vest in thea contention, however, cannot be entertained in view of Article 31A of the Constitution.The Act had received the assent of the President and is rendered immune for attack or challenge on the ground of violation of Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.In Mahadeo Paikaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. State of Bombay, (1962) 1 SCR 733   = (AIR 1961 SC 1517  ) the constitutional validity of the Act itself was canvassed but the challenge failed. Similarly the validity of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1956 as applied to Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area was upheld in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, (1959) (Supp) 1 SCR 489 = (AIR 1959 SCis difficult to accept the suggestion that the case of the appellant would fall within Explanation (I) in Section 2 (12). Physical or mental disability as defined by S. 2 (22) lays emphasis on the words "personal labour or supervision". As has been rightly pointed out in Shri Kesheoraj Deo Sansthan, Karanja v. Bapurao Deoba, 1964 Mah LJ 589 in which an identically similar point came up for consideration, the dominating idea of anything done personally or in person is that the thing must be done by the person himself and not by or through someone else.In our opinion the following passage in that judgment at p. 593 explains the whole positionshould thus appear that the legislative intent clearly is that in order to claim a cultivation as a personal cultivation there must be established a direct nexus between the person who makes such a claim, and the agricultural processes or activities carried on the land. In other words, all the agricultural operations, though allowed to be done through hired labour or workers must be under the labour or workers must be under the direct supervision, control, or management of the landlord. It is in the sense that the word "personal supervision" must be understood. In other words, the requirement of personal supervision under the third category of personal cultivation provided for in the definition does not admit of an inermediary between the landlord and the labourer, who can act as agent of the landlord for supervising the operations of the agricultural worker. If that is not possible in the case of one landlord, we do not see how it is possible in the case of another landlord merely because the landlord in the latter case is a juristicother words the intention is that the cultivation of the land concerned must be by natural persons and not by legal persons.