# MAHANT RAMSWARUP GURU CHHOTE BALAKDAS v. MOTIRAM KHANDU PATIL & ORS - **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 641 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-09-26 - **Bench:** J. C. Shah, J. M. Shelat - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahant-ramswarup-guru-chhote-balakdas-v-motiram-khandu-patil-ors-4153 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote 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 availab!e to trust administered in , C Madhya Pradesh only a sman portion of whose property is situated in Maharashtra. Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands AC1i 194B 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 D held by him as a tenant. Section BBB 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 Re. organisation 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 Mah~rashtra. Thereafter the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, E 1960 was passed, amending the Act of 1950. Before this amendment. s. 2B 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 whkh the Act was applied to them. By the amendment Schedule AA was added to the Act and when read with s. 2B the effect thereof was that the trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act 1951 were deemed F 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. 2B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and s. BBB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act sought G exemption from the 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 H Bombay Act irrespective of whether they are sfflll 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 reorganisation of the State have come within the State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Ac~ did not apply, [645B-D1 L/l(N)6SCI-·1(•) IV1llmlll QOUllT BliPOlltl [1968] I s.c.a. 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 Maha- • rashtra State, though the trust was within Madhya Pradesh State, A 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 eithe~ 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- B 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) - QVIL 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 C No. ## Text \ 'lo I 341 A MAHANT RAMSWARUP GURU CHHOTE BALAKDAS B v. MOTIRAM KHANDU PATIL & ORS. September 26, 1967 [J. C. SHAH AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J 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 availab!e to trust administered in , C Madhya Pradesh only a sman portion of whose property is situated in Maharashtra. Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands AC1i 194B 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 D held by him as a tenant. Section BBB 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 Re. organisation 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 Mah~rashtra. Thereafter the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, E 1960 was passed, amending the Act of 1950. Before this amendment. s. 2B 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 whkh the Act was applied to them. By the amendment Schedule AA was added to the Act and when read with s. 2B the effect thereof was that the trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act 1951 were deemed F 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. 2B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and s. BBB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act sought G exemption from the 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 H Bombay Act irrespective of whether they are sfflll 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 reorganisation of the State have come within the State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Ac~ did not apply, [645B-D1 L/l(N)6SCI-·1(•) IV1llmlll QOUllT BliPOlltl [1968] I s.c.a. 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 Maha- • rashtra State, though the trust was within Madhya Pradesh State, A 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 eithe~ 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- B 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) - QVIL 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 C No. 259 of 1962. 0. 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. D The appellant is the mahant of a public and religious trust called Kabir Nirnay Mandir. The trust is being administered E at Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh and the bulk of its properties is situate there. except three pieces of land at Vadjai, al village in Dhalia 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 certi- F ficate 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 oonended by Amendment Act, XIII of 1956 which came into G force on August 1, 1956. The Amendment Act inducted into the Act inter alia secs. 32 to 32R and secs. 88A to88D. Secs. 32 to 32R deal with purchase of land by tenant.s. Sub-se~on I o~ sec; 32 provides that on the first day of April 1957, 1.e .. the tillers day, every tenant sh~l~. subject to the other pr_ovisions. of this section and the provmons of the next succeedmg sections, be B deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as a tenant. In certain cases the said date, viz .. April 1. 1957 has been postponed but we are not concerned in thh:, appeal with . ' I RAMSWARUP V. MO'fll\AM (S/telut, J.) 643 those provisions nor with any such postponed date. Secs. 88A to 88C exclude the operation of secs. 32 to 32R to land specified A therein. Section 88B inter alia provides:- B c D "Nothing in the foregoing provisions except sections 3, 4B, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, lOA, 11 13, and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI land VIII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters arc applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above, shall apply (b) to lands which are lhe property of a trust or an institution for public religious worship." The proviso to the sub-section reads as follows: - "Provided that (iJ 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 bf 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 lo be satisfied: (i) that the land in question is the property of a trust or an institution for public religious worship, (2) that E the trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombary 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 oon