MANIK VINAYAK PATHARE (DEAD) BY RASIK KARSANDAS MAKHECHAversusPANDURANG GANPAT THAKAR & ORS.

                      MANIK VINAYAK PATHARE (DEAD)
                      BY RASIK KARSANDAS MAKHECHA                                    A
                                    v.
                    PANDURANG GANPAT THAKAR & ORS.

                                 DECEMBER 20, 1986
                                                                                      B
         [P.N. BHAGWATI CJ., RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID,
                    G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.)

              Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section·
        888( I )(b }, proviso theretC>-Whether the introduction of conditions (i)
        and (ii) thereunder offends the provisions of Article 26 of the
        Constitution.                                                                 c
···)-
              In order that the lands belonging to a Trust for an institution for
        public religious worship should he entitled to exemption from the
        operation of Sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act, 1948, two condi·
        lions namely (i) that the Trust most he registered or deemed to he            D
        registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950; and (ii) that the
        entire income of the lands belonging to a Trust for an Institution for
        public religious worship must he appropriated for the purposes of such
        a Trust who added under the proviso to section 36B(l)(h) of the Act.
        The challenge to the constitutional validity of the same was negatived hy
        the Bombay High Court. Hence the appeals hy special leave.                   E

              Dismissing the appeals, the Court,

              HELD: Sub-section l(h) of section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy
        and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not offend against Article 26 of
        the Constitution by reason of the introduction of conditions (I) and (ii) F
        in the proviso to that sub-section. [869G-H)

               Both conditions (i) and (ii) do not 'in any way detract from the
        exemption granted under sub-section l(h) of section 88B of the Act.
        Condition (i) merely introduces a requirement that the Trust must he
        registered or deemed to he registered under the Bombay Public Trust G
        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 l(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 he registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act,· 1950, that would
        afford incontrovertible proof of the fact that it is a trust for a charitable H

                                           867
    868                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [ 1987] I S.C.R.

A or religious purpose. Condition (ii) requires 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. It' lands
  belonging to a trust for an institution for public religious worship are to
  be eligible for exemption under sub-section l(b) of section 888, it '."ould
  be quite legitimate for the legislature to insist that the entire income of
B such lands must he appropriated for the purposes or 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 purposes. [869C-F]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2211
    (N) of 1969.
c       From the Judgment and Order dated 22/23.8. 1968 of the
    Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1418 of 1964.

          V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2211 of 1969.

D        S.B. Bhasme, P.C. Kapur, Y.N. Ganpule and S.K. Agnihotri for
    the Appellants in C.A. No. 119 l of 1970.

          Nemo for the Respondents in C.A. No. 22 l l of 1969.
                                                                                ~   .
         Vinod Bobde, D.N. Mishra and Ms. Sunita for the Respondents
 E in C. A. No. 119 l of 1970.

          Mrs. Urmila Sirur, for the Intervener.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F        BHAGWATI, CJ. The only question which arises in these appe-
  als is whether sub-section l{b) of section 88B is unconstitutional and
  void as offending Article 26 of the Constitution. The constitutional
  validity of sub-section l(b) of section 88B is assailed on the ground
  that by reason of condition (i) in the proviso to this sub-section, sec-
  tions 32 to 32 R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
G 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act') are made applic-
  able 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 P.ublic Trust Act, 1950 and the applica-
  bility of sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act to such lands con-
  travenes the right of the institution to own and acquire moveable and
H immovable property under Article 26 of the Constitution. The High
                    M.V. PATHARE (DEAD) v.P.G. THAKAR [BHAGWATI, CJ.]             869

            Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the petitioners. We A
            are also of the view that this challenge must fail. It is not necessary to
            go into any detailed reasons for the purpose of holding that sub-section
             l(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 condi-
            tion provides that in order that the lands belonging to a Trust for an
        +   institution for puolic religious worship should be entitled to exemption B
            from the operation of sections 32 to 32R 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 m~in part of sub-section
             l(b) of section 88B in favour of lands belonging to a Trust for an·
            institution for public religious worship. It merely introduces a require-
            ment that the Trust must be registered or deemed to be registered
                                                                                         c
            under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and this reguirement is
            introduced in order to ensure that the Trust is really and truly a trust
            which falls within the language of sub-section l(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 D
            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 exemp-
            tion granted under sub-section l(b) of section 88B.

                  So also, condition (ii) introdur:d in the proviso does not detract E


-           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 regligious worship ar~


-~
            to be eligible for exemption under sub-section l(b) of section 88B, it
            would be quite legitimate for the legislature to insist that the entire F
            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.

                  We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section l(b) of section G
            88B does not offend against Article 26 of the Constitution by reason of
            the introduction of conditions (i) a11d (ii) in the proviso to that sub-
            section. These appeals must fail on this short ground. They are accord-
            ingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

            S.R.                                                 Appeals dismissed.