Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:
The respondent is a trustee of a public trust known as Khairat Peechandhe Nawaz Trust. His father who was also a trustee of the devasthan lands, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner. That suit was dismissed as it had abated.The respondent filed an application under section 32 P off the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. By this application the respondent sought restoration of the possession of the land of the Devasthan which was occupied by the petitioner. The respondent contended in the application that it was declared a public trust in 1960.
It was further pleaded that the petitioner had not at any point of time exercised his option under section 32G to purchase the land from the landlord by contending that he was in possession as a tenant on the Tillers day, that is on 1st April 1957.
The respondent contended that since the land belonged to a public trust, an exception was carved out under section 88 B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, making certain sections of the Act inapplicable. It was therefore contended that the petitioner had no right to continue in occupation of the devasthan land. This application was opposed by the petitioner by contending that he was in possession of the land on the tillers day. It was further contended that no notice was given the petitioner when proceedings were initiated for exemption under section 88 B of the act. It was also pleaded that the trust was registered only in 1960 and in any event the petitioner was a tenant at that point of time and ought to have been given an option to exercise this right under 32G for purchasing the land occupied by him as a tenant.

7. It is true that before an order is passed under section 88 B of the act a tenant occupying the land's of the charitable trust must be given notice as his valuable right or purchase the lands occupied by him under section 32 of the act would be seriously affected. In fact the judgement of the division bench of this court relied by the learned advocate the petitioner takes this view. However in the present case the petitioner has not challenged the order passed under section 88 of the act. What is challenged are the orders passed by the tenancy court and by the appellate authority and the revenue tribunal. A perusal of the impugned orders indicate that all the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner had no right to continue in possession of the devasthan lands as there was no material before the authorities to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the land on the tillers day. Had the petitioner in fact been in possession of the lands on the tillers day he would have exercised his option immediately for purchasing the land occupied by him. The petitioner in my opinion has rightly been evicted from the devasthan lands as he was unable to establish any right to occupy those lands.