# KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN v. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 936
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-08-19
- **Bench:** J.C. Shah, Actisg C.J, V. Ramaswam!, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kalanka-devi-sanstiian-v-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-nagpur-ors-4741
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

B
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Vldarbha Region) Act,
195~. 2(12) Explanation I, ss. "36" and 38-Expremon "to cultivate•
ptrsorrolly"-Scope of-I/ a Sansthan or private religious trust entitled to
recol'er possession of agricu!tu .. al land f(lr "personal cultivation".
The appellant Sansthan. a private reli!lious tru<t. derived most ell ita
C
incom1 from cndoY•cd agricultural land. The fourlh respondent was a
tenant of a part of the land.
A notice was served on him on behalf of
the appellant in January 1961 under s. 38 of !he Bomhay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,
19~S. to give up possession
of the land as it was required bv the Sansthan for personal cultivation. As
the notice was not complied with, the appellant made an application under
s. 36 which was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar. The S.D.O. as well as
the first respondent Revenue Tribunal, confirmed lhis ordc ... The appellant
D
rhere~fter filed a petilion in the High Coon under Art. 227 but rhis was
dismissed.
In appeal to !his Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that under Explanation I in s. 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 cultivate\! by the servants or by hired labou'rers; as an
idol or a Sansthan that would fall v.·ithin the meaning of the word "person·
E
can well be regarded to be subject to a physical or mental disability and
land can be cullivated on irs behalf by servants or hired labourers,
by
virtue of Explanation I the idol would be in the same position Fl.i a minor
and it can cul!ivate the land personally within the meaning of s. 2(12).
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
(i) There wa.s no 'force in the contention that the case of the appellant
fell within faplanalion I in s. 2(12). Physical or menial disability as d&-
fined by s. 2(22), Jays emphasis on the words "personal labour or supervision".
In other words the intention
is that the cultivation of the land
concerned mu•t be by natural pmon• and not bv legal pmons. [939 E]
Shri Kesheoraj Deo
Sansthan.
Karania v. Bapuraa
Deoba &: Ors.
[1964] :l.fah L.J. 589, 593, relied upon.
(ii) Neither proyisions of Bcrar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act,
1951 nor of the Bombay Public Trustc; Act could be of any assistance to
the appellants. In the present case it 'A'as common ground that the Sansthan
was a private trust and y..·as not governed by the provisions of the Bombay
Public Trusts Act. The manager of the Wahiwatdar of the SanSlhan could
not, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in
s. 2(18 l of the Act. [940 F-FJ
/1hwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal <l Ors.,
[19681 3 S.C.R.
441. refeinod to.
F
G
H
KALANXA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Grover, J.)
937
A
(iii) There was no fOrce in the contention that the provisions of the
Act which had the effect of debarring the appellant from ciaiming possessioP. for personal cultivation were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) di
the Constitution. The Act is rendered immune from attack on these
grounds in view of the provisions of Article 31(A)
of the Constitution.
1941 A-Bl
B
c
Shri Mahadw Palkaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. The State of Bombay, [19621
1 S.C.R. 733 and Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay,
[1959] Supp. 1 $,C.R. 489, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLj\TB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of
1966.
Appeal by special foave from the order dated April 8, 1965 of
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 40 of 1965.
W. S. Bar/ingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the
appellant.
M. S. K. Sastriand S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and
B
5.
E
F
G
H
M. Veerappa, for respondent No. 4.
The Judgment 6f the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition under
Art. 227 of the Constitution which had been filed by appellant
Sans than.
.
The appellant is a private religious Tmst which is

## Text

936
KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN
v.
MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS.
August 19, 1969
(J.C. SHAH, ACTISG C.J., V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
B
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Vldarbha Region) Act,
195~. 2(12) Explanation I, ss. "36" and 38-Expremon "to cultivate•
ptrsorrolly"-Scope of-I/ a Sansthan or private religious trust entitled to
recol'er possession of agricu!tu .. al land f(lr "personal cultivation".
The appellant Sansthan. a private reli!lious tru<t. derived most ell ita
C
incom1 from cndoY•cd agricultural land. The fourlh respondent was a
tenant of a part of the land.
A notice was served on him on behalf of
the appellant in January 1961 under s. 38 of !he Bomhay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,
19~S. to give up possession
of the land as it was required bv the Sansthan for personal cultivation. As
the notice was not complied with, the appellant made an application under
s. 36 which was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar. The S.D.O. as well as
the first respondent Revenue Tribunal, confirmed lhis ordc ... The appellant
D
rhere~fter filed a petilion in the High Coon under Art. 227 but rhis was
dismissed.
In appeal to !his Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that under Explanation I in s. 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 cultivate\! by the servants or by hired labou'rers; as an
idol or a Sansthan that would fall v.·ithin the meaning of the word "person·
E
can well be regarded to be subject to a physical or mental disability and
land can be cullivated on irs behalf by servants or hired labourers,
by
virtue of Explanation I the idol would be in the same position Fl.i a minor
and it can cul!ivate the land personally within the meaning of s. 2(12).
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
(i) There wa.s no 'force in the contention that the case of the appellant
fell within faplanalion I in s. 2(12). Physical or menial disability as d&-
fined by s. 2(22), Jays emphasis on the words "personal labour or supervision".
In other words the intention
is that the cultivation of the land
concerned mu•t be by natural pmon• and not bv legal pmons. [939 E]
Shri Kesheoraj Deo
Sansthan.
Karania v. Bapuraa
Deoba &: Ors.
[1964] :l.fah L.J. 589, 593, relied upon.
(ii) Neither proyisions of Bcrar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act,
1951 nor of the Bombay Public Trustc; Act could be of any assistance to
the appellants. In the present case it 'A'as common ground that the Sansthan
was a private trust and y..·as not governed by the provisions of the Bombay
Public Trusts Act. The manager of the Wahiwatdar of the SanSlhan could
not, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in
s. 2(18 l of the Act. [940 F-FJ
/1hwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal <l Ors.,
[19681 3 S.C.R.
441. refeinod to.
F
G
H
KALANXA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Grover, J.)
937
A
(iii) There was no fOrce in the contention that the provisions of the
Act which had the effect of debarring the appellant from ciaiming possessioP. for personal cultivation were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) di
the Constitution. The Act is rendered immune from attack on these
grounds in view of the provisions of Article 31(A)
of the Constitution.
1941 A-Bl
B
c
Shri Mahadw Palkaji Kolhe Yavatmal v. The State of Bombay, [19621
1 S.C.R. 733 and Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay,
[1959] Supp. 1 $,C.R. 489, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLj\TB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of
1966.
Appeal by special foave from the order dated April 8, 1965 of
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 40 of 1965.
W. S. Bar/ingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the
appellant.
M. S. K. Sastriand S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and
B
5.
E
F
G
H
M. Veerappa, for respondent No. 4.
The Judgment 6f the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition under
Art. 227 of the Constitution which had been filed by appellant
Sans than.
.
The appellant is a private religious Tmst which is managed
by Laxman Anant Mulay who is described as a Wahiwatdar
(Manager).
The main source of income for performing the
several acts including the daily worship of the family deity ( Shri
Kalanka Devi) is stated to be derived from endowed agricultural
land.
Respondent No. 4 is the tenant in field survey No.
94
with an area of 30 acres 8 gunthas in Mouza Malrajura, district
Akola.
On Jamuary 30, 1961 a notice was served on behalf of
the appellant on respondent No. 4 under the provisions of s. 38
of the Bombay Tenancy and · Agricultural Lands
(Vidarbha
Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act. It was mentioned in the notice that an earlier notice under s. 9(i) of the Berar
Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act had been served in the year
1955 that the Sansthan required the aforesaid field for personal
cultivation and, therefore, he should give up possession. Those
proceedings were Pending but a notice under s. 38 of the Act
was given to tenninate the tenancy without prejudice to the previous proceedings;
As the notice· was not complied with an
application was filed on behalf of the appellant under s. 36 of
the Act for possession which was opposed by respondent No. 4 .
. ,
\138
SUPREME COGRT REPORTS
[19 70] I S.C.R.
T)ie Naib Tehsildar rejected the application on the ground that
the Sansthan was not a land-holder who could cultivate the land
personally.
His order was confirmed
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer and by the Maharashtra
Revenue
Tribunal to
whom
appeals were taken.
The appellant ultimately tiled a
petition
under Art. 227 of the Constitution before the High Court which,
as stated before, was dismissed.
The only point which has to be determined is whether
the
Sansthan could take advantage of the provisions contained in the
Act by which possession can be claimed from the tenant on the
ground that it is required for personal cultivation.
Section 2(12)
of the Act defines the words "to
cultivate
personally" in
the
following manner :
S. 2 ( 12) "to cultivate p.~rsonally" means to cultivate on one's O\\'n account-
(i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
(iii) under the personal supervision of one-self or of
any member of one's family by hired labour or
by servants on wages payable in cash or i<ind but
not in crop share;
Explanation /.-A widow or a minor or a person
who is subject to any physical or mental disability, or
a serving member of the armed forces shall be deemed
to cultivate the land personally if it is cultivated by her
or his servant> or by hired labourer;
Explanation II . ........... "
According to s. 2 < 22) the "physinl or mental disability" means
physical or mental disability by reason of which the person subject to such disability is incapable of cuitivating lan<l bv personal
Jabour or supervision.
The word "tenant .. is defined bys. 2(32)
as meaning a person "lw holds land on lea~' inclu<ling a person
who is dccme<l to be a tenant un<ler ss. 6, 7 or 8 and a person
who is a protected lessee or occupancy tenant.
It is
provided
that the wor<l ":an<llord" shall he construed
accordin~ly. Section 3R deals with termination of tenancv bv landlord for cultivatin.c land personally.
It says that after ~iving notice to a tc·
nant in writing at any time on or before February 15. 1961 and
makine an :tpplication for possession under s. 36 on or before
March- 31. 1961 the landlor<l may terminate the tenancy other
tha;n an occupancy tenancy if the landlord bona fidr requires the
land for cultivating it personally.
Sub-s. (3) gives the conditions subject to which the tenancy can be terminated.
A
ll
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KALANKA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Grover, J.)
939
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 Mukherjee's Hindu Law of Reiigious
and Charitable Trust at pp. 142-43, 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 natural person.
"It has a juridical
status with the power of suing and being sued.
Its interests are
attended to· by the person who has the deity in his charge and
who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in
such circumstances, 6n analogy, be given to the manager of the
estate of an infant heir".
The question, however, is whether the
idol is capable of cultivating
the land personally.
The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that under Explanation
I ins. 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 persona!ly within
the meaning. of s. 2(12). It is difficult to accept the suggestion
that the case of th'e appellant would fall within Explanation (I)
ins. 2(12).
Physical or mental disability as defined bys. 2(22)
lays emphasis on the words "personal labour or supervision". As
has been rightly pointed out in Shri Kesheora; Deo Sansthan,
Karan;; v. Bapurao Deoba & Ors.(') in which an identioally
. 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 some one else.
In our opinion the following passage is that judgment at p. 593
explains the whole l)osition 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 al!owed to be done through hired labour or
workers mnst be under the direct supervision, control,
or management of the landlord.
It is in that sense fbat
the words "personal supervision" must be understood.
In other words, the requirement of personal supervision
under the third category of personal cultivation provid-
(1) [1964] Mah. L.J. 589, 593.
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1970] 1 S.C.R.
cd for in the definition docs not admit of an intern¥-
A
diary 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 sec how it is
possible in the case of another landlord merely because
the landlord in the latter case is a juristic person".
B
In other words the intention is that the cultivation of the land
concerned must be by natural persons and not by legal persons.
It has next been contended that in the provision of the Berar
Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 publiG
trusts ot
charitab!.: nature were included among those who could
claim
possession from a tenant on the ground of petsonal cultivation.
It is not possible to sec 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
Jshwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors.(') has also
been referred to hy the counsel for the appellant.
In that case
it was said that under s. 2 ( 18) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
a trustee has been defined as meaning a person in whom either
alone or in association wi!ll 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 cl. 32 of s. 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 personality".
In the present case
it
is
common ground that th.~ Sansthan is a private trust and is not
governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
The manager of the Wahiwatdar of the Sansthan cannot, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "trustee" as given in
s. 2(18) of that Act.
It may be mentioned that in lshwardas,
case ( 1 ) 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 tho
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 tl!e 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.
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
(I) [196813S.C.ll.441.
c
D
E
F
G
H
-
A
B
KALANKA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Grover, J.)
941
of Arts. 14 and 19(l)(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 Art. 3 lA of
the Constitution. The Act had received the assent .of the President and is rendered immune from attack or challenge on the
ground of violation of Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution. In
Shri Mahadeo Paikaji Ko/he Yavatmal v.
The State of Bombay ( 1 ) 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 Viqatbha Region and Kutch Area was upheld in
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay(').
The appeal consequently fails and it is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) [1962] I S.C.R. 733.
(2) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 489.
Ll~Sup./69-22-5-70-GIPF.