- (1.) THIS is a second round of litigation. The matter arises out of the application filed by the respondent for exemption under Section 88(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. When an exemption was granted in favour of the respondent the petitioner herein, the tenant, challenged the said order of exemption by way of writ petition No.5253/85 before this Court. By judgment dated 17-2-1987, this Court has set aside the exemption certificate and remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer to take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties both oral and documentary. In this context, it is necessary to quote the paragraph 5 of the earlier judgment of this court. "In the present case no witness has been examined on oath on behalf of the Trust. Whether the entire income of the land let to the petitioner-tenant is utilised for religious purposes which is the object of the respondent-Trust is left to one's imagination. Whether the rent in respect of the land is Rs. 29.68 P. per annum as reflected in the lease deed or whether it is between Rs. 150/- to Rs. 225/- per annum as evidenced by the rent receipts in question and whether the entire income has been appropriated for the purpose of the respondent-Trust has remained to be enquired into. That being the position, this is a fit case which requires a reconsideration of the entire matter on merits."
(2.) IN view of the above para, it is clear that the parties have been directed to adduce evidence on two points, viz. 1) Whether the income of the property is utilised for religious purposes which is the object of the respondent-Trust. 2) There is variation on the rate of rent in the land which is shown as Rs. 29.68/- per annum whereas the rent receipt shows that the rent is between Rs. 150/- to Rs. 225/-. This Court has clearly directed the parties to adduce evidence on these two points. After remand, it appears that both the counsel appearing for the parties agreed that no evidence need to be adduced and therefore Sub Divisional Officer has proceeded with the matter on the basis of the materials already available. The Sub-Divisional Officer has then passed an order in favour of the respondent granting exemption certificate under section 88(b). The said order is again under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel Mr. Patil appearing for the petitioner has mainly argued that the directions of this Court has not been complied with. In the light of the specific directions of this Court the propriety demands that it should be complied with though both the parties are of the opinion that no evidence is required to be adduced. Action of parties amounts to violation of the directions of this court. When this court has expressed that it is necessary to adduce evidence, the parties cannot by consent, violate that direction and the Sub Divisional Officer was wrong in proceeding with the consent made by the parties. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22-11-1987 passed by the Sub Divisional officer granting exemption to the respondent is set aside. The parties are directed to comply with the direction contained in the judgment in writ petition No.5253/85. The Sub Divisional Officer to proceed with the matter after adducing evidence by the parties and decide the matter afresh within three months. The parties are directed to be present before the Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati, District Pune, on 05-02-1999. The record and the writ must be sent forthwith. Certified copy is expedited. Petition allowed.;