1967 (9) TMI 151 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
- Eligibility criteria for obtaining an exemption certificate under section 88B.
- Application of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to trusts situated in different states.
- Effect of territorial changes on the registration of trusts under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to an appeal regarding the eligibility of a mahant of a public and religious trust to obtain an exemption certificate under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The key issue revolves around whether the trust meets the conditions specified in section 88B for obtaining the exemption certificate. The three conditions required for eligibility are: (1) the land must be owned by a trust for public religious worship, (2) the trust must be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and (3) the entire income from the lands must be utilized for the trust's purposes.

The first and third conditions are not in dispute in this case. The crux of the matter lies in whether the trust is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The appellant contends that the trust, situated in Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh, should be considered registered under the Bombay Act due to territorial changes and the insertion of Schedule AA in the Act. However, the court clarifies that the application of the Bombay Act is intended for trusts that have come within the new State of Maharashtra post-reorganization, not trusts still situated in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, trusts administered in Madhya Pradesh are not automatically governed by the Bombay Act, as this would lead to conflicting jurisdiction between the two states' trust laws.

The court emphasizes that the trust's location and administration in Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh, with only a small portion of its property in Maharashtra, do not warrant dual governance under both state laws. Such a division of administration is not contemplated by the Acts. Consequently, the trust in question does not fall under the purview of section 28 and cannot be deemed registered under the Bombay Act. As a result, the appellant is not entitled to the exemption certificate under section 88B, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the specific conditions that must be met for obtaining an exemption certificate under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, emphasizing the importance of proper registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the impact of territorial changes on the application of trust laws across states.