As per case facts, the Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They contended that two conditions within its proviso—requiring ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
MANIK VINAYAK PATHARE (DEAD)BY RASIK KARSANDAS MAKHECHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PANDURANG GANPAT THAKAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1986
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
MISRA RANGNATH
KHALID, V. (J)
OZA, G.L. (J)
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 668 1987 SCR (1) 867
1986 SCC Supl. 683 JT 1987 (1) 40
1986 SCALE (2)1229
ACT:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section
88B(1)(b), proviso thereto--Whether the introduction of
conditions (i) and (ii) thereunder offends the provisions of
Article 26 of the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
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 Sections 32 to 32R of the
Tenancy Act, 1948, two conditions namely (i) that the Trust
must be registered or deemed to be 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 be appropriated for the
purposes of such a Trust who added under the proviso to
section 36B(1)(b) of the Act. The challenge to the constitu-
tional validity of the same was negatived by the Bombay High
Court. Hence the appeals by special leave.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: Sub-section 1(b) 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 (1) and (ii) 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 i(b) of section
88B of the Act. Condition (i) merely introduces a require-
ment 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 subsection 1(b) of section 88B, namely, that it is genu-
inely a trust for an institution for public religious wor-
ship. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
868
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 appropriat-
ed 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 t(b) of section
88B, it would be quite legitimate for the legislature to
insist that the entire income of such lands must be appro-
priated 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 purposes. [869C-F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11 (N)
of 1969.
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.
S.B. Bhasme, P.C. Kapur, V.N. Ganpule and S.K. Agnihotri
for the Appellants in C.A. No. 1191 of 1970.
Nemo for the Respondents in C.A. No. 2211 of 1969.
Vinod Bobde, D.N. Mishra and Ms. Sunita for the Respond-
ents in C.A. No. 1191 of 1970.
Mrs. Urmila Sirur, for the Intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, CJ. The only question which arises in these
appeals is whether sub-section 1(b) of section 88B is uncon-
stitutional and void as offending Article 26 of the Consti-
tution. 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 32R of the Tenancy Act to such lands contra-
venes the right of the institution to own and acquire move-
able and immovable property under Article 26 of the Consti-
tution. The High
869
Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the peti-
tioners. We 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 1(b) of section
88B does not offend Article 26 of the Constitution on ac-
count of condition (i) in the proviso to that sub-section.
This condition provides that in order that the lands belong-
ing to a Trust for an institution for public religious
worship should be entitled to exemption 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 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 intro-
duced in order to ensure that the Trust is really and truly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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.
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 be-
longing 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.
We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section 1(b) of
section 88B does not offend against Article 26 of the Con-
stitution by reason of the introduction of conditions (i)
and (ii) in the proviso to that subsection. These appeals
must fail on this short ground. They are accordingly dis-
missed but without any order as to costs.
S.R. Appeals dis-
missed.
870
In the pivotal judgment of Manik Vinayak Pathare (Dead) by Rasik Karsandas Makhecha vs. Pandurang Ganpat Thakar & Ors., a distinguished bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial ruling on the interplay between land tenancy laws and religious freedoms. This case, readily available for review on CaseOn, provides a definitive interpretation of the constitutional validity of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy Act, particularly in its relation to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution. The court examined whether conditions imposed on land exemptions for religious trusts constituted an infringement of their right to manage property.
The case revolved around a challenge to Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This section granted an exemption to lands belonging to trusts established for public religious worship from certain stringent provisions of the Act (Sections 32 to 32R). However, a proviso added two key conditions for a trust to qualify for this exemption:
The petitioners argued that these conditions were an unconstitutional restriction on their right to own and administer property as a religious institution, a right protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the introduction of the two conditions—mandatory registration and full appropriation of income—in the proviso to Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act violated the fundamental right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs and property under Article 26 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court systematically dismantled the petitioners' arguments, holding that the conditions were not an infringement but rather a reasonable regulatory framework. The court’s analysis focused on the purpose and effect of each condition.
1. The Registration Requirement: A Tool for Verification, Not a Restriction
The Court reasoned that the requirement for a trust to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, did not detract from the exemption. Instead, it served as a crucial procedural safeguard. The registration process provides what the Court called "incontrovertible proof" that the trust is genuinely established for a charitable or public religious purpose. This condition, therefore, helps to ensure that only legitimate trusts benefit from the exemption, preventing fraudulent claims and ensuring the law's intent is upheld.
2. The Income Appropriation Requirement: Preventing Misuse and Ensuring Genuineness
Similarly, the Court found the second condition—that the entire income of the lands be used for the trust's purposes—to be entirely legitimate. This requirement ensures that the trust is not merely a "facade for carrying out some other purposes." By mandating that all income from the exempted land be funneled back into the religious institution's activities, the legislature ensured that the economic benefit of the exemption directly serves the public religious worship for which it was granted. This prevents the commercial exploitation of land under the guise of religious activity.
Analyzing the nuances of such constitutional challenges requires careful study. For legal professionals on the go, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that distill complex rulings like this, providing quick and accessible insights into the court's reasoning on Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy Act and its interplay with fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court concluded that Section 88B(1)(b) of the Act does not offend Article 26 of the Constitution. The conditions introduced in the proviso were deemed reasonable, non-intrusive measures designed to ensure the integrity of the exemption process. They do not take away the right to own or administer property; they merely ensure that the trusts claiming exemptions are authentic and that the benefits are used for their stated religious purpose. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
In essence, the Supreme Court held that the state has the authority to impose reasonable conditions to verify the credentials of religious trusts seeking statutory benefits like land exemptions. The requirements of registration and appropriation of entire income were upheld as valid regulatory tools aimed at preventing the misuse of exemptions, rather than as restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of religion and property administration.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on your specific situation.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....