This case involves a dispute over the land bearing Survey No. 73/1 at Mouje Rohinjan, with the petitioner claiming the land is part of their trust and exempt under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (BT & AL Act). The petitioner challenges the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) decision that reinstated an Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) order, declaring respondent No.1 a tenant entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G of the BT & AL Act. The petitioner's counsel argues the land's exemption based on historical orders and documents, invoking res-judicata principles. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 contest the res-judicata claim and the land's inclusion in the trust's Schedule-I, while Respondent No.1 supports the MRT's decision, asserting tenant rights and procedural issues in the petitioner's claims.

1. Representation of Advocates

• Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate for the petitioner
• Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
• Mr. Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
• Mr. Hamid Mulla, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 5 – State

2. Petition Details

• The petition challenges the MRT judgment dated 19.01.2023.
• The MRT judgment reversed the SDO's order and restored the ALT's order from 05.09.2019.
• The ALT declared respondent No. 1 a tenant entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G of the BT & AL Act.

3. Arguments by Mr. Patil (Petitioner's Counsel)

• The petitioner-Trust claims exemption under Section 88-B of the BT & AL Act based on an order dated 30.05.1959.
• The father's application under Section 32G of the BT & AL Act was previously rejected, not considered by ALT in 2019.
• The rejection indicates the principle of res-judicata should apply, citing relevant case laws.

4. Arguments by Mr. Anturkar (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4's Counsel)

• Res-judicata principles are not applicable as no conclusive order from 1961 exists.
• Mutation Entry is for fiscal purposes, does not establish title or rejection of the claim.
• Petitioner-Trust's claim on the land is invalid as it was not included in Schedule-I until 2019.

5. Arguments by Mr. Karandikar (Respondent No. 1's Counsel)

• Supports Mr. Anturkar's arguments.
• Emphasizes the land's possession by the tenant and the procedural issues in the petitioner's claims.

6. Arguments by Mr. Patil in Rebuttal

• The Gazette Notification including the petitioner-Trust in the list of Waqf is under challenge.
• The order of 30.05.1959 by Deputy Collector is valid as per Section 2(2E) of the BT & AL Act.
• Asserts the land's ownership by the petitioner-Trust and its inclusion in Schedule-I.

7. Factual Background

• Original owner of Survey No. 73/1 was Yakub Baig, who created a trust in 1909.
• Disputes over trust management led to a scheme by District Judge in 1953, including Survey No. 73/1.
• Ownership of the land by the petitioner-trust is undisputed, but tenancy claims by respondents are contested.

8. Ownership and Tenancy Records

• Petitioner-Trust's ownership is established through various historical records and orders.
• Respondent No. 1's father’s tenancy application under Section 32-G of the BT & AL Act reflects the tenancy status and postponed exemption claims.

9. Exemption Claim by the Petitioner-Trust

• Section 88-B(1) of the BT & AL Act: Exemption criteria and provisions.
• Certificate Issued: A certificate dated 30.05.1959 granted to the petitioner-trust.

9.1 Section 88-B of the BT & AL Act

• Quoted Text: Details the conditions under which certain lands are exempt from the Act’s provisions.

9.2 Certificate Grant and Objections

• Certificate Validity: Not disputed but challenged for compliance with the trust’s income use.
• Historical Context: The original trust deed from 1909 and subsequent judicial interpretation.

9.3 Trust Scheme Clauses

• Relevant Clauses (14a to c): Allocation of trust income among descendants and for charitable purposes.

9.4 Current Status of Trust Scheme Clauses

• No Changes Indicated: The clauses remain operative without challenge.

9.5 Continuation of Exemption Order

• Order Validity: The 1959 exemption order remains effective as it hasn't been set aside.

9.6 Legal Precedent

• Keraba Dattu Borachate Case: Importance of tenant notification and rights affected by exemption certificates.

9.7 Impact on Tenant Rights

• Exemption Consequences: Tenants lose rights to purchase lands under Section 32 if an exemption certificate is granted.

10. Inclusion of Survey No. 73/1

• Disputed Inclusion: Plea regarding the exclusion of Survey No. 73/1 from the exemption order.
• Lack of Initial Challenge: Argument not raised previously cannot be introduced now.

11. Jurisdictional Argument

• Collector vs. Deputy Collector: Definition and authority under Section 88-B(2).

12. Trust's Application and Schedule-1

• 1995 Application: Filed for inclusion of Survey No. 73/1 in Schedule-1.
• Rejection of Plea: Joint Charity Commissioner’s 2018 judgment rejecting the premise of mistaken inclusion.

12.1 Application under Section 36(1)(a)

• Further Rejection: Joint Charity Commissioner’s decision based on lack of record in Schedule-1.

12.2 Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2019

• Assistant Charity Commissioner's Order: Inclusion of properties in Schedule-1 without reference to previous judgment.

12.3 Undisclosed Judgment

• Inconsistency in Stand: The petitioner-trust’s failure to disclose the 2018 judgment when filing a new application.

12.4 Consistent Stand of Petitioner-Trust

• Schedule-1 Inclusion: First inclusion of Survey No. 73/1 was in 2019.

13. Requirements for Exemption

• Necessary Conditions: Property must be included in Schedule-1 and recognized before exemption under Section 88-B can be granted.
• Legal Precedent (Laxmibai S. Patil Case): Requirement to show income appropriation from specific lands for exemption.

Conclusion

• Exemption Validity: Survey No. 73/1 not covered under the 1959 exemption as it was included in Schedule-1 only in 2019.
• Petitioner-trust's reliance on Mutation Entry No. 587 and subsequent exemption under Section 88-B of the BT & AL Act does not affect the vested rights of the tenant as of the tillers' day (1st April 1957).
• The principles of res judicata do not apply in the absence of a detailed adjudication by a competent authority.