http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MANIK VINAYAK PATHARE (DEAD)BY RASIK KARSANDAS MAKHECHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PANDURANG GANPAT THAKAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1986

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  668            1987 SCR  (1) 867  1986 SCC  Supl.  683     JT 1987 (1)    40  1986 SCALE  (2)1229

ACT:     Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 88B(1)(b),  proviso  thereto--Whether  the  introduction  of conditions (i) and (ii) thereunder offends the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:     In  order  that the lands belonging to a  Trust  for  an institution for public religious worship should be  entitled to exemption from the operation of Sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act, 1948, two conditions namely (i) that the  Trust must  be  registered or deemed to be  registered  under  the Bombay  Public  Trust Act, 1950; and (ii)  that  the  entire income of the lands belonging to a Trust for an  institution for  public religious worship must be appropriated  for  the purposes  of  such a Trust who added under  the  proviso  to section 36B(1)(b) of the Act. The challenge to the constitu- tional validity of the same was negatived by the Bombay High Court. Hence the appeals by special leave. Dismissing the appeals, the Court,     HELD:  Sub-section  1(b) of section 88B  of  the  Bombay Tenancy  and  Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does  not  offend against  Article  26 of the Constitution by  reason  of  the introduction  of conditions (1) and (ii) in the  proviso  to that sub-section. [869G-H]     Both  conditions (i) and (ii) do not in any way  detract from the exemption granted under sub-section i(b) of section 88B  of the Act. Condition (i) merely introduces a  require- ment  that  the  Trust must be registered or  deemed  to  be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and  this requirement is introduced in order to ensure that the  Trust is really and truly a trust which falls within the  language of subsection 1(b) of section 88B, namely, that it is  genu- inely  a trust for an institution for public religious  wor- ship. If the Trust is registered or deemed to be  registered under  the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, that would  afford incontrovertible proof of the fact that it is a trust for  a charitable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

868 or  religious  purpose.  Condition (ii)  requires  that  the entire  income  of  the lands belonging to a  Trust  for  an institution for public religious worship must be appropriat- ed  for the purposes of such Trust. If lands belonging to  a trust for an institution for public religious worship are to be eligible for exemption under sub-section t(b) of  section 88B,  it  would be quite legitimate for the  legislature  to insist  that the entire income of such lands must be  appro- priated  for the purposes of such Trust. That  would  ensure that  the  trust  is a genuine Trust  for  public  religious worship  and  is not merely a facade for carrying  out  some other purposes. [869C-F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.   11  (N) of 1969.     From  the Judgment and Order dated 22/23.8. 1968 of  the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1418 of 1964. V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2211 of 1969.     S.B. Bhasme, P.C. Kapur, V.N. Ganpule and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants in C.A. No. 1191 of 1970. Nemo for the Respondents in C.A. No. 2211 of 1969.     Vinod Bobde, D.N. Mishra and Ms. Sunita for the Respond- ents in C.A. No. 1191 of 1970. Mrs. Urmila Sirur, for the Intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     BHAGWATI,  CJ. The only question which arises  in  these appeals is whether sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is uncon- stitutional and void as offending Article 26 of the  Consti- tution.  The constitutional validity of sub-section 1(b)  of section  88B  is assailed on the ground that  by  reason  of condition  (i) in the proviso to this sub-section,  sections 32 to 32 R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands  Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Tenancy Act’) are made applicable to lands which are the properties of a Trust  for an  institution for public religious worship, if such  Trust is  not  registered  or deemed to be  registered  under  the Bombay  Public  Trust  Act, 1950 and  the  applicability  of sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act to such lands  contra- venes the right of the institution to own and acquire  move- able and immovable property under Article 26 of the  Consti- tution. The High 869 Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the  peti- tioners.  We are also of the view that this  challenge  must fail.  It is not necessary to go into any  detailed  reasons for the purpose of holding that sub-section 1(b) of  section 88B  does not offend Article 26 of the Constitution  on  ac- count  of condition (i) in the proviso to that  sub-section. This condition provides that in order that the lands belong- ing  to  a  Trust for an institution  for  public  religious worship  should be entitled to exemption from the  operation of sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act, the Trust must  be registered  or  deemed  to be registered  under  the  Bombay Public  Trust Act, 1950. This condition does not in any  way militate  against  the exception which is made in  the  main part  of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B in favour of  lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for public religious worship.  It merely introduces a requirement that the  Trust must  be  registered or deemed to be  registered  under  the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and this requirement is intro- duced in order to ensure that the Trust is really and  truly

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

a trust which falls within the language of sub-section  1(b) of section 88B, namely, that it is genuinely a trust for  an institution  for public religious worship. If the  Trust  is registered  or  deemed  to be registered  under  the  Bombay Public  Trust Act, 1950, that would afford  incontrovertible proof  of  the fact that it is a trust for a  charitable  or religious  purpose. This condition does not,  therefore,  in any way detract from the exemption granted under sub-section 1(b) of section 88B.     So  also, condition (ii) introduced in the proviso  does not  detract from the exemption, since all that it  requires is that the entire income of the lands belonging to a  trust for  an  institution for public religious  worship  must  be appropriated  for the purposes of such Trust. If  lands  be- longing  to a trust for an institution for public  religious worship  are to be eligible for exemption under  sub-section 1(b)  of section 88B, it would be quite legitimate  for  the legislature  to insist that the entire income of such  lands must  be appropriated for the purposes of such  Trust.  That would  ensure that the trust is a genuine Trust  for  public religious  worship and is not merely a facade  for  carrying out some other purpose.      We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section 1(b) of section  88B does not offend against Article 26 of the  Con- stitution  by reason of the introduction of  conditions  (i) and  (ii) in the proviso to that subsection.  These  appeals must  fail on this short ground. They are  accordingly  dis- missed but without any order as to costs. S.R.                                           Appeals  dis- missed. 870