http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MAHANT RAMSWARUP GURU CHHOTE BALAKDAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTIRAM KHANDU PATIL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/1967

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  422            1968 SCR  (1) 641  CITATOR INFO :  R          1969 SC 566  (14)

ACT: Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as amended by Act 6 of  1960, s.  28  and  Schedule AA-Certain  areas  of  Madhya  Pradesh transferred  to Maharashtra-Trusts registered  under  Madhya Pradesh  Public Trusts Act , 1951 to be treated under s.  28 as  registered  under Bombay Act-Benefit of  s.  28  whether available  to  trust administered in Madhya Pradesh  only  a small portion of whose property is situated in Maharashtra.

HEADNOTE: Section  32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands Act  1948 as amended by, Act XIII of 1956 provides  that  on the  first day, of April 1957 every tenant shall subject  to certain   provisions  and  exceptions  be  deemed  to   have purchased  from  his  landlord the land held  by  him  as  a tenant.   Section  88B provides an exception  in  favour  of trusts  which are or are deemed to be registered  under  the Bombay  Public  Trusts Act, 1950 when  the  Collector  after enquiry  certifies  to that effect.  After  the  territorial changes  made by the States Reorganization Act 1956 and  the further changes made in 1960 certain territories of the then State  of Bombay were excluded and certain other areas  were brought  into the new State of Maharashtra.  Thereafter  the Bombay  Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act,  1960 was   passed,  amending  the  Act  of  1960.   Before   this amendment, s.  28 of the Act 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 was applied  to them.  By the amendment Schedule AA was added to the Act and when read with s. 28 the effect thereof was that the  trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act 1951 were deemed  to have been registered under the Bombay Act. The appellant in the present case was the mahant of a public and  religious  trust which was administered  at  Burhanpur, Madhya  Pradesh.   The  bulk  of  its  properties  were   in Burhanpur  but three pieces of land lay in the new State  of Maharashtra.  The appellant relying on the amended s. 28  of the  Bombay  Public  Trusts Act and s.  88B  of  the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act sought exemption from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

operation  of  s. 32 of the latter Act.  The  matter  having been  decided  against him by the High Court at  Bombay,  he appealed by certificate to this Court. HELD:     Though  s. 28 of the Bombay Public Trusts  Act  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  Act is intended to apply only to  those  trusts which  as a result of the reorganization of the  State  have come within the State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Act did not apply. [645B-D] 642 In the present case there was no dispute that the trust  was administered  at Burhanpur and the bulk of  the  properties, except  the three pieces of land situate in Maharashtra  lay in Madhya Pradesh.  The fact that a part of its property was situate  in Maharashtra State, though the trust  was  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  was  not contemplated by either of  the  two Acts.   The present trust did not therefore fall within  the ambit  of s. 28 and was not one of those trusts which  could be  deemed  to  be registered under the  Bombay  Act.   Con- sequently  it  was  also not a  trust  which  fulfilled  the conditions of s. 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands Act and the appellant could not be said to be entitled to the certificate under that section. [645F-H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1965. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated December  11/  12, 1962  of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil  Application No. 259 of 1962. O.   P.  Malhotra, P. C. Bhartari and O. C. Mathur, for  the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat,  J. This appeal by certificate is  directed  against the  judgment of the High Court at Bombay dated 11 /  12-12- 1962 in Writ Petition 259 of 1962. The appellant is the mahant of a public and religious  trust called Kabir Nirnay Mandir.  The trust is being administered at Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh and the bulk of its  properties is situate ’there, except three pieces of land at Vadjai,  a village  in Dhulia District.  Respondent 1 is the tenant  of two  out  of these three pieces of land situate  at  Vadjai. The  question  in this appeal is whether the  appellant  can apply and obtain an exemption certificate under sec. 88B  of the   Bombay  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Lands  Act,   1948 (hereinafter referred to as the( Act). The  Act was originally passed in 1948 but  was  drastically amended by Amendment Act, XIII of 1956 which came into force on August 1, 1956.  The Amendment Act inducted into the  Act inter alia sees. 32 to 32R and sees. 88A to88D.  Sees. 32 to 32R deal with purchase of land by tenants.  Sub-section 1 of sec. 32 provides that on the first day of April 1957,  i.e., the  tillers’ day, every tenant shall, subject to the  other pro-visions  of this section and the provisions of the  next succeeding  sections, be deemed to have purchased from,  his landlord the land held by him as a tenant.  In certain cases

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the said date, viz., April 1, 1957 has been postponed but we are not concerned in this appeal with                             643 those  provisions nor with any such postponed  date.   Sees. 88A to 88C exclude the operation of sees. 32 to 32R to  land specified therein.  Section 88B inter alia provides:-               "Nothing  in the foregoing  provisions  except               sections 3, 4B, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 11 13,               and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI  land               VIII  in so far as the provisions of the  said               Chapters are applicable to any of the  matters               referred  to in the sections mentioned  above,               shall apply               (b)to lands which are the property of a  trust               or   an  institution  for   public   religious               worship."               The  proviso  to  the  sub-section  reads   as               follows:-"Provided that               (i)such trust is or is deemed to be registered               under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and               (ii)  the  entire  income of   such  lands  is               appropriated for the purpose of such trust."               Sub-section 2 of section 88B provides that               "for   the   purpose  of   this   section,   a               certificate  granted by the  Collector,  after               holding an inquiry, that the conditions in the               proviso  to sub-section (1) are  satisfied  by               any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that               behalf."    Thus  for eligibility for an exemption  certificate  three conditions  have  to  be satisfied: (i)  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 under the 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) and (3) and the only controversy is whether  condition  2  is  satisfied.   If  all  the   three conditions  are satisfied and a certificate is  obtained  by the  trust under sub-section 2 of sec. 88B, sees. 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 the Act. The  contention of respondent 1, the tenant is  that  though conditions 1 and 3 are satisfied, the Trust situate as it is at Burhanpur outside the Maharashtra State cannot be  deemed to  be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts  Act.   The Bombay  Public  Trusts  Act  was  passed  in  1950  by   the legislature  of the then State of Bombay and its  object  as stated  in  its preamble is to regulate and to  make  better provision  for  the administration of public  religious  and charitable  trusts  in  the  State  of  Bombay.   See.  1(3) provides that the Act shall come into force at once; but the provisions  thereof  shall apply to a public  trust  or  any class  of  public  trusts  on  the  date  specified  in  the notification under sub-section (4).  Sub-section 4  provides that  the State Government may 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 644 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 application  for registration of the public trust giving  in such  application the information specified therein.   Under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

sec.  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  sec. 21 to  make  entries  in  the register kept under sec. 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   therein   after following.   Before its amendment in 1960 sec.  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 1956 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 sec. 28 by sec. 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 sec. 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 Trusts Act, 1951 from having to be  once again  registered under the Bombay Act.  The  Amendment  Act 1960  was brought into force as from January 1, 1961.  By  a notification  dated January 31, 1961 issued under sec.  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 the Bombay Public Trusts  Act,               1950  the Government of Maharashtra  specifies               the 1st day of February 1961 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."                             645 The question is whether sec. 28 can be said to apply to  the present  Trust.  Though sec. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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 sec. 28  would  still  be governed  by and administered under the Madhya Pradesh  Act. If sec. 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. 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 sec. 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 s. 88B of the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the appellant  cannot be  said  to  be  entitled to  the  certificate  under  that section. The  appeal  is  dismissed. There will be, no  order  as  to costs. G.C.                 Appeal dismissed, 646