That Collector on an enquiry held finder sub section 2 of Section 88 B of the BTAL Act, being satisfied that the Trust was an institution for public religious worship registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as required by Clause i of the proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 88 B of the BTAL Act and the entire income from the lands for which exemption certificate was sought was appropriated for the purpose of the Trust as required by Clause ii of the proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 88 B thereof, granted the certificate of exemption sought for, on May 27, 1963.
The Tribunal taking the view that the exemption certificate should number have been granted by the Collector when it was number shown on behalf of the Trust that the entire income of all lands of the Trust had been appropriated for the purpose of the Trust, as was required by Condition ii of the proviso to Clause b of sub section 1 of Section 88 B of the BTAL Act, made an order allowing that Revision Petition.
The respondent made an application under Rule 52 1 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 before the District Deputy Collector, Karvir Division, Kolhapur seeking grant of an exemption certificate under Section 88 B of the BTAL Act in favour of the Trust in respect of its lands on which the appellants were the tenants.
The High Court by its judgment dated November 7, 1983 while allowed the Special Civil Application No.
The appellants challenged the validity of the certificate so granted, by filing a revision petition in that behalf before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur the Tribunal.
3186 of 1978 of the respondent, dismissed Writ Petition No, 3771 of 1981 of the appellants.
The respondent questioned the companyrectness of that order of the Tribunal by filing Special Civil Application No.
Respondent is the Managing Trustee of the Hajarat Pir, Babujmal, Deosthan Public Trust, Kolhapur, The appellants were tenants of some of the lands of that Trust under the BTAL Act.
It is that order of the High Court which has been impugned by the appellants in this appeal by special leave.
