Supreme Court Upholds Tenants’ Rights Over Devasthan Land: Key Judgment Analysis

The case of Janardan Dagdu Khomane & Anr. v. Eknath Bhiku Yadav & Ors. is a landmark ruling that examines the interplay between tenancy rights and public religious trusts under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (formerly Bombay Tenancy Act). The Supreme Court upheld the tenants’ rights over the land, rejecting the exemption claim made by a religious trust.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolves around 6 acres and 19 gunthas of agricultural land in Pimpli Village, Pune, which was originally classified as Devasthan (religious trust) land belonging to the deity Maruti Dev. The respondents (tenants) claimed they had been cultivating the land before April 1, 1957, the ‘Tillers’ Day’ as per the 1948 Act, and were therefore entitled to ownership under Section 32.

However, the appellants, acting as trustees of the Maruti Dev Trust, contended that the land was exempt under Section 88B, which excludes lands belonging to public religious trusts from the tenancy provisions.

Legal Questions Before the Court

• Did the tenants acquire ownership under Section 32 of the 1948 Act?
• Could the Maruti Dev Trust claim exemption under Section 88B?
• Was the trust’s late registration in 1984 sufficient to invoke exemption?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants (Trustees of Maruti Dev Trust)

• The land had always belonged to the deity and was Devasthan Inam land.
• The Maruti Dev Trust was registered as a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, on August 8, 1984.
• Under Section 88B, lands belonging to religious institutions are exempt from tenancy provisions.

Respondents (Tenants)

• They had been cultivating the land since before ‘Tillers’ Day’ (April 1, 1957), making them deemed owners under Section 32.
• The trust was not registered before 1957, meaning Section 88B did not apply.
• Once tenants became deemed owners in 1957, their ownership could not be undone by the trust’s later registration.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court held that for a religious trust to claim exemption under Section 88B, it must have been registered before 1957. The Maruti Dev Trust was registered only in 1984, making the exemption claim invalid.

The Court stated: “The respondents became deemed purchasers on Tillers’ Day, that is, 1.4.1957. The right under Section 32 accrued to them on that day. The respondents cannot be divested of such right upon subsequent registration of the Trust.”

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the trust existed before registration, stating that even a constructive trust must be officially registered for exemption to apply.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Tenants who were in possession on April 1, 1957, automatically became owners under Section 32.
• Religious trusts must be registered before 1957 to claim exemption under Section 88B.
• Late registration of a trust does not retroactively affect tenants’ rights.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Bombay High Court’s decision that the land rightfully belonged to the tenants. This ruling strengthens the position of tenants under the 1948 Act, ensuring that religious trusts cannot claim exemption unless they meet strict legal requirements.

Petitioner Name: Janardan Dagdu Khomane & Anr..
Respondent Name: Eknath Bhiku Yadav & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Pune, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 18-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Janardan Dagdu Khoma vs Eknath Bhiku Yadav & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category