Shri Manik Vinayak Pathare (Dead) by Rasik Karsandas Makhecha. Vs. Pandurang Ganpat Thakar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2211 (N) of 1969.
And
Civil Appeal No.1191 of 1970.
And
Civil Appeal No.1191 of 1970.
Petitioner: Shri Manik Vinayak Pathare (Dead) by Rasik Karsandas Makhecha.
Respondent: Pandurang Ganpat Thakar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2211 (N) of 1969.
And
Civil Appeal No.1191 of 1970.
And
Civil Appeal No.1191 of 1970.
Judges: P.N.BHAGWATI CJ., RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, G.L. OZA & M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 20, 1986
Head Note:
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT,1948.
Sections 32 to 32 R, Conditions (i) & (ii) in the proviso to sub-section 1 (b) of section 88B- Constitution of India, 1950, Article 26 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Exemption from the operation of sections 32 to 32 R – Conditions to be fulfilled under proviso to sub-section 1(b) of Section 88 B do not in any way detract from the exemption granted under sub-section 1(b) of Section 88B.
Sections 32 to 32 R, Conditions (i) & (ii) in the proviso to sub-section 1 (b) of section 88B- Constitution of India, 1950, Article 26 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Exemption from the operation of sections 32 to 32 R – Conditions to be fulfilled under proviso to sub-section 1(b) of Section 88 B do not in any way detract from the exemption granted under sub-section 1(b) of Section 88B.
JUDGEMENT:
BHAGWATI, C.J.
1. The only question which arises in these appeals is whether sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is unconstitutional and void as offending Article 26 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is assailed on the ground that by reason of condition (i) in the proviso to this sub-section, sections 32 to 32 R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tenancy Act’) are made applicable to lands which are the properties of a Trust for an institution for public religious worship, if such Trust is not registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the applicability of sections 32 to 32 R of the Tenancy Act to such lands contravenes the right of the institution to own and acquire moveable and immoveable property under Article 26 of the Constitution. The High Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the petitioners. We are also of the view that this challenge fail. It is not necessary to go into any detailed reasons for the purpose of holding that sub-section 1(b) of section 88B does not offend Article 26 of the Constitution on account of condition (i) in the proviso to that sub-section. This condition provides that in order that the lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for public religious worship should be entitled to exemption from the operation of section 32 to 32 R of the Tenancy Act, the Trust must be registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This condition does not in any way militate against the exception which is made in the main part of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B in favour of lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for public religious worship. It merely introduces a requirement that the Trust must be registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and this requirement is introduced in order to ensure that the Trust is really and truly a trust which falls within the language of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B, namely, that it is genuinely a trust for an institution for public religious worship. If the Trust is registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, that would afford incontrovertible proof of the fact that it is a trust for a charitable or religious purpose. This condition does not, therefore, in any way detract from the exemption granted under sub-section 1(b) of section 88B.
2. So also, condition (ii) introduced in the proviso does not detract from the exemption, since all that it requires is that the entire income of the lands belonging to a trust for an institution for public religious worship must be appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. If lands belonging to a trust for an institution for public religious worship are to be eligible for exemption under sub-section 1(b) of section 88B, it would be quite legitimate for the legislature to insist that the entire income of such lands must be appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. That would ensure that the trust is a genuine Trust for public religious worship and is not merely a facade for carrying out some other purpose.
3. We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section 1(b) of section 88B does not offend against Article 26 of the Constitution by reason of the introduction of conditions (i) and (ii) in the proviso to that sub-section. These appeals must fail on this short ground. They are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The only question which arises in these appeals is whether sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is unconstitutional and void as offending Article 26 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is assailed on the ground that by reason of condition (i) in the proviso to this sub-section, sections 32 to 32 R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tenancy Act’) are made applicable to lands which are the properties of a Trust for an institution for public religious worship, if such Trust is not registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the applicability of sections 32 to 32 R of the Tenancy Act to such lands contravenes the right of the institution to own and acquire moveable and immoveable property under Article 26 of the Constitution. The High Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the petitioners. We are also of the view that this challenge fail. It is not necessary to go into any detailed reasons for the purpose of holding that sub-section 1(b) of section 88B does not offend Article 26 of the Constitution on account of condition (i) in the proviso to that sub-section. This condition provides that in order that the lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for public religious worship should be entitled to exemption from the operation of section 32 to 32 R of the Tenancy Act, the Trust must be registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This condition does not in any way militate against the exception which is made in the main part of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B in favour of lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for public religious worship. It merely introduces a requirement that the Trust must be registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and this requirement is introduced in order to ensure that the Trust is really and truly a trust which falls within the language of sub-section 1(b) of section 88B, namely, that it is genuinely a trust for an institution for public religious worship. If the Trust is registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, that would afford incontrovertible proof of the fact that it is a trust for a charitable or religious purpose. This condition does not, therefore, in any way detract from the exemption granted under sub-section 1(b) of section 88B.
2. So also, condition (ii) introduced in the proviso does not detract from the exemption, since all that it requires is that the entire income of the lands belonging to a trust for an institution for public religious worship must be appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. If lands belonging to a trust for an institution for public religious worship are to be eligible for exemption under sub-section 1(b) of section 88B, it would be quite legitimate for the legislature to insist that the entire income of such lands must be appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. That would ensure that the trust is a genuine Trust for public religious worship and is not merely a facade for carrying out some other purpose.
3. We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section 1(b) of section 88B does not offend against Article 26 of the Constitution by reason of the introduction of conditions (i) and (ii) in the proviso to that sub-section. These appeals must fail on this short ground. They are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
