Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)
Baban Rambhau Tikande And Anr vs Shri Vithal Mandir Swakul Sali Samaj ... on 6 August, 2019 cites

Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda vs Bhagwant S/O Maroti Dhakulkar And Ors. on 17 August, 1989

4] Mr.Mandlik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioners preferred application under Section 32G of MTAL Act on 17/09/1991 i.e. after a laps of about more than 25 years from the date of death of Shripati G. Tikande in the year 1963. He submitted that, on the date of filing of the application by the petitioners i.e. on 17/09/1991 under Section 32G of MTAL Act, the Respondent-Trust was already registered on 17/07/1991 and therefore, the provisions of Section 88B(1)(b) of MTAL Act has application to the present proceedings. He submitted that, the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 32G was not within the reasonable period and therefore is barred by limitation. He 5/13 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 08:03:36 ::: osk 201-wp-6168-1998.odt however fairly conceded to the fact that, the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant s/o. Maroti Dhakulkar & Others, reported in [1989 Mh.L.J. 710] taking the said view has been set-aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant & Others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 307. He submitted that, the adjudication of tenancy of the petitioners under Section 40 or under Section 70(B) of MTAL Act was not undertaken by the concerned authority, i.e. ALT, either on an application filed by the petitioners or suo-moto and therefore for want of declaration of the petitioners as tenants, their claim for fixing price of suit land under Section 32G cannot be entertained. He further submitted that, the Revenue Tribunal after considering the necessary and relevant provisions of law has rightly passed the impugned Order dated 06/07/1998 and therefore, interference by this Court in it is not necessary. He therefore prayed that, the present petition may be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Laxminarayan Temple, Kothure, Through ... vs Laxman Mahadu Chandore By His Legal ... on 23 August, 1968

7] The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhatrapati Ccharitable Devasthan Trust Vs. Parisa Appa Bhoske & Others, reported in [1979 Mh.L.J. 1633], by relying on the decision in the case of Sri Laxminarayan Temple (supra), while analyzing the provisions of Section 88B of MTAL Act and 32 of the Bombay Trusts Act (Maharashtra Trusts Act) has held that, a trust is not entitled to the exemption till it fulfills the two requirements mentioned in the proviso of Section 88B of MTAL Act. It is further held that, a trust may be created after Section 88B came into effect and still the land owner would be entitled to exemption, even by that section. A trust however cannot claim an exemption under that section in respect of land which had already become property of the tenant before the right of exemption was acquired by the trust. 8] As noted above and at the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned here that, Shripati G. Tikande was declared to be a protected tenant in the year 1950 and continued to be a protected tenant after the incorporation of Section 4A in the MTAL Act, which was inserted by way of Amendment Act 13 of 1956. The petitioners being successors in title of Shripati G. Tikande, their names have been entered into revenue 9/13 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 08:03:36 ::: osk 201-wp-6168-1998.odt records in the year 1965 by effecting Mutation Entry No. 10852. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforestated decisions, the contention of the respondent that, the provisions of Section 88B are applicable to the present case cannot be accepted and it is held that, the Revenue Tribunal has clearly erred in accepting the contention of the respondent in that behalf.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next