{"id":115286,"date":"1969-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969"},"modified":"2018-07-17T14:38:59","modified_gmt":"2018-07-17T09:08:59","slug":"kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 439, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 936<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKALANKA DEVI SANSTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPURl & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C. (CJ)\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  439\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 936\n 1969 SCC  (2) 616\n\n\nACT:\n    Bombay   Tenancy  and  Agricultural\t Lands\t   (Vidarbha\nRegion)\t Act,  1958---S.  2(12) Explanation I,\tss.  36\t and\n38--Expression\t\"to  cultivate personally\"--Scope  of--If  a\nSansthan  or  private religious trust  entitled\t to  recover\npossession of agricultral, land for \"personal cultivation\".\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant  Sansthan,  a  private  religious  trust,\nderived\t most of its income from endowed agricultural  land.\nThe fourth respondent was a tenant of a part of the land.  A\nnotice\twas  served  on him on behalf of  the  appellant  in\nJanuary\t 1961  under  s.  38  of  the  Bombay\tTenancy\t and\nAgricultural  Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, to give  up\npossession  of the land as it was required by  the  Sansthan\nfor  personal  cultivation. As the notice was  not  complied\nwith,  the. appellant made an application under s. 36  which\nwas 'rejected by the Naib Tahsildar.  The S.D.O. as well  as\nthe first respondent Revenue Tribunal, confirmed this order.\nThe appellant thereafter filed a petition in the High  Court\nunder Art. 227 but this was  dismissed.\n    In\tappeal to this Court it was contended on  behalf  of\nthe  appellant that under Explanation I in s. 2(12)  of\t the\nAct  a\tperson\twho is subject to  any\tphysical  or  mental\ndisability shall be deemed to cultivate the land  personally\nif it is cultivated by the servants or by hired laborers; as\nan idol or a Sansthan that would fall within the meaning  of\nthe word \"person' can well be regarded to. b.e subject to  a\nphysical or mental disability and land can be cultivated  on\nits  behalf  by servants  or hired laborers,  by  virtue  of\nExplanation  I the idol would be in the same position  as  a\nminor  and it can cultivate the land personally\t within\t the\nmeaning of s. 2(12).\nHELD: Dismissing the appeal,\n    (i) There was no 'farce in the contention that the\tcase\nof  the\t appellant fell within Explanation I  in  s.  2(12).\nPhysical  or mental disability as defined by s. 2(22),\tlays\nemphasis on the words \"personal labour or supervision\".\t  In\nother  words the intention  is that the cultivation  of\t the\nland  concerned must be by natural persons and not by  legal\npersons. [939 E]\n    Shri Kesheoraj Deo\tSansthan,  Karania v. Bapurao  Deoba\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    (ii)   Neither   provisions\t of  Berar   Regulation\t  of
\nAgricultural  Leases  Act,  1951 nor of\t the  Bombay  Public
\nTrusts Act could be of any assistance to the appellants.  In
\nthe present case it was common ground that the Sansthan\t was
\na  private trust and was not governed by the  provisions  of
\nthe Bombay Public Trusts Act.  The manager of the Wahiwatdar
\nof  the\t Sansthan  could not,  therefore,  fall\t within\t the
\ndefinition of the word “trustee” as given in s. 2 ( 18 )  of
\nthe Act. [940 E-F]
\n    Ishwardas  v.  Maharashtra\tRevenue\t Tribunal  &   Ors.,<\/a>
\n[1968] 3 S.C.R. 441, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
937<\/span><\/p>\n
    (iii)  There  was no force in the  contention  that\t the
\nprovisions of the Act which had the effect of debarring\t the
\nappellant from claiming possession for personal\t cultivation
\nwere   violative  of  Articles\t14  and\t 19(1)(f)   or\t the
\nConstitution.  The Act is rendered  immune from\t attack\t  on
\nthese  grounds in view of the provisions of Article  31\t (A)
\nof the Constitution. 1941 A-B]
\n    Shri  Mahadeo  Paikaji Kolhe Yavatmal v.  The  State  of
\nBombay,<\/a> [1962], 1 S.C.R. 733 and Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v.
\nThe   State of Bombay,<\/a> [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R.  489,  referred
\nto.\n<\/p>\n
&
\n    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 862  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal  by special leave from the order dated  April  8,
\n1965  of  the  Bombay High Court, Nagpur  Bench\t in  Letters
\nPatent Appeal No. 40 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
    W.S. Barlingay, R. Mahalingier  and Ganpat Rai,  for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.S.K. Sastri and S.P. Nayar, for respondents’ Nos. 2, 3 and\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nM. Veerappa, for respondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Grover,  J.\t This is an appeal by special leave  from  a
\njudgment  of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a  petition
\nunder  Art. 227 of the Constitution which had been filed  by
\nappellant Sansthan.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant  is a private religious  Trust  which  is
\nmanaged\t by  Laxman  Anant  Mulay who  is   described  as  a
\nWahiwatdar  (Manager).\t The  main  source  of\tincome\t for
\nperforming  the several acts including the daily worship  of
\nthe family deity (Shri Kalanka Devi) is stated to be derived
\nfrom  endowed  agricultural land.  Respondent No. 4  is\t the
\ntenant in field\t survey No.  94 with ,an area of 30 acres  8
\ngunthas in Mouza Malrajura, district Akola.  ‘On January 30,
\n1961  a\t notice\t was served on behalf of  the  appellant  on
\nrespondent No. 4 under the provisions of s. 38 of the Bombay
\nTenancy\t and   Agricultural  Lands  (Vidarbha  Region)\tAct,
\n1958,  hereinafter called the Act.  It was mentioned in\t the
\nnotice\tthat  an earlier notice under s. 9(1) of  the  Berar
\nRegulation of Agricultural Leases Act had been served in the
\nyear 1955 that the Sansthan required the aforesaid field for
\npersonal  cultivation  and,  therefore, he  should  give  up
\npossession.   Those  proceedings were pending but  a  notice
\nunder  s. 38 of the  Act was given to terminate the  tenancy
\nwithout\t prejudice  to\tthe previous  proceedings.   As\t the
\nnotice was not\tcomplied  with\tan application was filed  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t appellant  under  s.  36  of  the  Act\t for
\npossession which was opposed by respondent No. 4
\n938<\/span>
\nThe  Naib Tehsildar rejected the application on\t the  ground
\nthat the Sansthan was not a land-holder who could  cultivate
\nthe land personally.  His order was confirmed  by  the\tSub-
\nDivisional Officer and by the Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal
\nto  whom appeals were taken.  The appellant ultimately filed
\na   petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution\t before\t the
\nHigh Court which, as stated before, was dismissed.
\n    The\t only  point which has to be determined\t is  whether
\nthe   Sansthan\tcould  take  advantage\tof  the\t  provisions
\ncontained in the Act by which possession can be claimed from
\nthe  tenant on the ground that it is required  for  personal
\ncultivation.  Section 2(12) of the Act defines the words “to
\ncultivate  personally” in  the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   S. 2(12) “to cultivate personally”  means
\n\t      to cultivate on one’s own account–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i) by one’s own labour, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  by\tthe labour of any  member  of  one’s
\n\t      family, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (iii)\t under the personal  supervision  of
\n\t      one-self\tor of any member of one’s family  by
\n\t      hired  labour or by servants on wages  payable
\n\t      in cash or kind but not in crop share;
\n\t\t    Explanation I.–A widow or a minor or  a
\n\t      person  who  is  subject to  any\tphysical  or
\n\t      mental disability, or a serving member of\t the
\n\t      armed forces shall be deemed to cultivate\t the
\n\t      land personally if it is cultivated by her  or
\n\t      his servants or by hired laborer;
\n\t      Explanation II…………  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According  to s. 2(22) the “physical or\t mental\t disability”
\nmeans  physical or mental disability by reason of which\t the
\nperson\t subject   to  such  disability\t is   incapable\t  of
\ncultivating  land  by personal labour or  supervision.\t The
\nword “tenant” is defined by s. 2(32) as meaning a person who
\nholds land on lease including a person who is deemed to be a
\ntenant\tunder ss. 6, 7 or 8 and a person who is a  protected
\nlessee or occupancy  tenant.  It is  provided that the\tword
\n“landlord”  shall  be construed\t  accordingly.\t Section  38
\ndeals\twith   termination  of\ttenancy\t by   landlord\t for
\ncultivating  land  personally.\tIt says\t that  after  giving
\nnotice\tto  a  tenant in writing at any time  on  or  before
\nFebruary  15, 1961 and making an application for  possession
\nunder  s. 36 on\t or before March 31, 19611 the landlord\t may
\nterminate  the\ttenancy other than  an occupancy tenancy  if
\nthe landlord bona fide requires the land for cultivating  it
\nperson,\t ally.\tSub-s. (3) gives the conditions\t subject  to
\nwhich the tenancy can be terminated.\n<\/p>\n
939<\/span><\/p>\n
    Now\t it  is\t well  known that  when\t property  is  given
\nabsolutely  for the worship of an idol it vests in the\tidol
\nitself as a juristic person.  As pointed out in\t Mukherjee’s
\nHindu  Law of Religious and Charitable Trust at pp.  142-43,
\nthis  view  is in  accordance with the Hindu ideas  and\t has
\nbeen  uniformly\t accepted  in  a  long\tseries\tof  judicial
\ndecisions.   The idol is capable of holding property in\t the
\nsame  way as a natural person.\t“It has a  juridical  status
\nwith  the power of suing and being sued.  Its interests\t are
\nattended  to by the person who has the deity in\t his  charge
\nand  who  is in law its manager with all the  powers   which
\nwould,\tin such circumstances, on analogy, be given  to\t the
\nmanager\t of  the estate of an infant heir”.   The  question,
\nhowever, is whether the idol is capable of cultivating\t the
\nland   personally.   The argument raised on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  is that under Explanation I in s. 2 (12)  of\t the
\nAct  a\tperson\twho is subject to  any\tphysical  or  mental
\ndisability shall be deemed to cultivate the land  personally
\nif it is cultivated by the servants or by hired laborer.  In
\nother words an idol or a Sansthan that would fall within the
\nmeaning\t of  the word “Person” can well be  regarded  to  be
\nsubject\t to a physical or mental disability and land can  he
\ncultivated  on its behalf by servants  or  hired  labourers.
\nIt is urged that in Explanation (I) the idol would be in the
\nsame position as a minor and it can certainly cultivate\t the
\nland  personally  within  the meaning of s.  2(12).   It  is
\ndifficult  to  accept the suggestion that the  case  of\t the
\nappellant  would fall within Explanation  (I) in  s.  2(12).
\nPhysical  or mental disability as defined by s.\t 2(22)\tlays
\nemphasis  on the words “personal labour or supervision”.  As
\nhas been rightly pointed out in Shri Kesheorai Deo Sansthan,
\nKaranji v. Bapurao Deoba & Ors.(1) in which  an\t identically
\nsimilar point came up for consideration, the dominating idea
\nof  anything done personally or in person is that the  thing
\nmust  be  done by the person himself and not by\t or  through
\nsome one else. In our opinion the following passage is\tthat
\njudgment at p. 593 explains the whole position correctly:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “It   should  thus\t appear\t  that\t the
\n\t      legislative   intent clearly is that in  order
\n\t      to   claim   a  cultivation  as\ta   personal
\n\t      cultivation  there  must\tbe   established   a
\n\t      direct nexus between the person who makes such
\n\t      a\t claim,\t and the agricultural  processes  or
\n\t      activities   carried  on the land.   In  other
\n\t      words, all the agricultural operations, though
\n\t      allowed  to be done through hired\t labour\t  or
\n\t      workers must be under the direct\tsupervision,
\n\t      controL, or management of the landlord.  It is
\n\t      in   that\t sense\tthat  the  words   “personal
\n\t      supervision”  must  be  understood.  In  other
\n\t      words, the requirement of personal supervision
\n\t      under   the   third   category   of   personal
\n\t      cultivation provid-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1) [1964] Mah. L.J. 589, 593.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      940<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ed for in the definition does not admit of  an
\n\t      intermediary  between  the  landlord  and\t the
\n\t      labourer, who can act as agent of the landlord
\n\t      for   supervising\t  the  operations   of\t the
\n\t      agricultural worker.  If that is not  possible
\n\t      in the case of one landlord, we do not see how
\n\t      it is possible in the case of another landlord
\n\t      merely because the landlord in the latter case
\n\t      is a juristic person”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In other words the intention is that the  cultivation of the
\nland  concerned must be by natural persons and not by  legal
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
    It has next been contended that in the provision of\t the
\nBerar  Regulation  of Agricultural Leases Act,\t1951  public
\ntrusts\t of charitable nature were included among those\t who
\ncould\tclaim  possession  from a tenant on  the  ground  of
\npersonal  cultivation.\tIt is not possible to  see  how\t the
\nprovisions  of\ta repealed statute which was  no  longer  in
\nforce,\tafter  the  enactment of the Act, could\t be  of\t any
\navail\tto  the\t appellant.   The  decision in Ishwardas  v.
\nMaharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal\t&  Ors.<\/a>(1)  has;  also\tbeen
\nreferred to by the counsel for the appellant.  In that\tcase
\nit was said that under s. 2(18) of the Bombay Public  Trusts
\nAct  a trustee has been defined as meaning a person in\twhom
\neither alone or in association with other persons the  trust
\nproperty is vested and includes a manager.  In view of\tthis
\ndefinition   the  properties  of  the  trusts  vest  in\t the
\nmanaging trustee and he is the landlord under cl. 32 of s. 2
\nof  the\t Act.\tAs  he is the landlord, he  can\t ask  for  a
\nsurrender  from\t the tenant of the lands of  the  trust\t “to
\ncultivate personality”.\t In the present case  it  is  common
\nground\tthat  the  Sansthan is a private trust\tand  is\t not
\ngoverned  by  the provisions of the  Bombay  Public   Trusts
\nAct. ‘The manager of the Wahiwatdar of the Sansthan  cannot,
\ntherefore, fall within the definition of the word  “trustee”
\nas given in s. 2(18) of that Act.  It may be mentioned\tthat
\nin   Ishwardas, case(1) the court refrained from  expressing
\nany  opinion on the question whether a manager or a  Shebait
\nof the properties of an idol or the manager of the  Sansthan
\ncan  or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands\t for
\npersonal cultivation. The distinction between a manager or a
\nShebait\t of  an idol and a trustee where a  trust  has\tbeen
\ncreated is well recognised.  The properties of the ‘trust in
\nlaw vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or  a
\nSansthan they do not vest in the manager or the Shebait.  It
\nis  the\t deity\tor the Sansthan which  owns  and  holds\t the
\nproperties.  It\t is only the possession and  the  management
\nwhich vest in the manager.\n<\/p>\n
      It  has  lastly  been  contended\tthat  the   relevant
\nprovisions of the Act which have the effect of debarring the
\nappellant    from   ,claiming\tpossession   for    personal
\ncultivation violate the provisions
\n(1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 441.\n<\/p>\n
941<\/span><\/p>\n
of  Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.\tIt is  urged
\nthat  discrimination  is  writ\tlarge  between\tanimate\t and
\njuristic persons who fall within the definition of the\tword
\n“person”.  Such a contention, however, cannot be entertained
\nin  view  of  Art. 31A of the  Constitution.   The  Act\t had
\nreceived the assent of the President and is rendered  immune
\nfrom  attack  or challenge  on\tthe round  of  violation  of
\nArticles  14  or 19 of the Constitution.   In  Shri  Mahadeo
\nPaikali\t Kolhe\tYavatmal   v.  The State  of  Bombay<\/a>(1)\t the
\nconstitutional validity of the Act itself was canvassed\t but
\nthe challenge failed.  Similarly the validity of the Bombay
\nTenancy and  Agricultural Lands Amendment Act,\t1956\tas
\napplied to Vidarbha Region and Kutch  Area was\tupheld\tin
\nSri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay<\/a>(2).
\nThe  appeal  consequently  fails and it\t is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n(1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 733.\n(2) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 489.\nL15Sup.\/69--22-5-70--GIPF.\n1<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 439, 1970 SCR (1) 936 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: KALANKA DEVI SANSTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPURl & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/08\/1969 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2030,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\",\"name\":\"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969"},"wordCount":2030,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969","name":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 19 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-17T09:08:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalanka-devi-sansthan-vs-maharashtra-revenue-tribunal-on-19-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, … on 19 August, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}