JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard advocates for the petitioner and respondent. 2. The parties have been litigating about their rights in respect of the suit land since 1951. During last 40 years there have been number of orders and remands to the lower Authorities for at least an half dozen of times, and as such the matter has to be conclusively and finally decided by this Court. 3. Though the litigation is going on for last 40 years, the question involved is very short. The respondent made an application under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The certificate was granted to the respondent on 19-10-1961. Admittedly, the certificate included land over which the petitioner is claiming right. The petitioner challenged the order of granting certificate, but however, he was unsuccessful, after which an inquiry under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act was started for determining the price of the land to be paid by the tenants. But the proceedings were dropped by the A.L.T. on 14-8-1961. This gave rise to the appeals and remands up to the last order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dt. 9-7-1985 by which order, the M.R.T. dismissed both the revisions filed by the respondent against the order of Assistant Collector, Mahabaleshwar dated 21-12-1983 Case No. TA 1/83 and the order dated 21-12-1983 in Case No. 1-A 4/83. 4. Only question involved in this case is, whether in view of the certificate granted to the respondent under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act the proceedings in respect of the suit land could be initiated under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act, and whether the petitioner can challenge the grant of the certificate under section 88-B of the said Act in favour of the respondent. 5. It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that when the proceedings under section 88-B were initiated at the instance of the respondent, no notice was given to the petitioner and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice to him. It was secondly contended that even if the certificate under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act granted to the respondent, same did not affect the suit land and the proceedings under section 32-G, and consequently the proceedings should not have been dropped and should have been held in favour of the petitioner who was a tenant of the land since last 100 years. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court in support of his contentions viz. 1969 Mh.L.J. 476 (Sri Laxminarayan Temple v. Laxman Mahadu Chandore)1 and 1979 Mh.L.J. 163 (Chhatrapati Charitable Devasthan Trust v. Parisa Appa Bhoske)2. 7. From the arguments of the parties it was clear that even though the notices were not issued to the petitioner during the proceedings under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act, the petitioner had challenged the order of granting the certificate, but has failed there. Secondly, as per the admitted facts the respondent trust was registered on 5-10-1953, that the application for the certificate was made in 1959 and the certificate was issued on 19-10-1961 and thereafter proceedings under section 32-G were initiated thereafter in respect of the right of the petitioner as on tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957. 8. In view of this fact, it has to be seen firstly whether the registration of the trust in 1953 adversely affect the rights of the petitioner under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. 9. In the Division Bench's judgment of this Court reported in 1969 Mh.L.J. 476, which was pressed in service by the Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, the trust was registered on 28-3-1958. Thereafter in 1962 the trustees applied for an exemption certificate under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act. The tenant opposed the application on the ground that he had become the owner of the land on the Tillers' Day (1-4-1957) i.e. prior to the date on which the trust was registered, therefore, the trust was not entitled to the exemption certificate. While deciding this point the Division Bench of this Court held that it was not necessary that the trust should have been registered on 1-8-1956, when section 88-B came into force, for the land of the trust to be entitled for exemption. However, the Division Bench held that a trust cannot claim an exemption under that section in respect of lands which had already become the property of its tenants before the right of exemption was acquired by the trust. The Division Bench therefore held in the circumstances of that case that the trust having become entitled to claim exemption under section 88-B for the first time on 28-3-1958 cannot get such exemption in respect of the land which had gone into the ownership of the tenant on 1-4-1957. 10. The Division Bench therefore held in the circumstances of that case that the trust having become entitled to claim exemption under section 88-B for the first time on 28-3-1958 cannot get such exemption in respect of the land which had gone into the ownership of the tenant on 1-4-1957. 10. In the second judgment of the Division of this Court reported in 1979 Mh.L.J. 163, the trust had applied for registration on 18-1-1956 and order of registration came to be passed on 31-5-1959. Thereafter the trust applied for exemption under section 88-B and after terminating the tenancy of the tenant, filed a suit for possession. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the trust was not entitled to apply for exemption till 31-5-1959 i.e. before registration as since before that date i.e. on 1-4-1957 the tenant had become owner of the land, he could not be divested of his right, the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 88-B in respect of the lands which were no longer owned by it and the suit was not maintainable. 11. From the facts of both the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court it will be clear that the tenants in those two cases had become the owners of the land on 1-4-1957 i.e. before the respective trusts were registered and before they applied for exemption certificate under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act. In the instant case, however, the trust was registered on 19-5-1953, and therefore, admittedly and clearly the tenant had not become and could not become the owner of the land on 1-4-1957 i.e. on the tiller's day. It was the trust which was the owner of the land on 1-4-1957 and consequently certificate granted to the respondent under section 88-B can not be interfered with. From both the judgments of the Division Bench it is clear that the date of registration of the trust has been held to be material date for the purpose of deciding ownership of the land on the tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957. In the Sri Laxminarayan v. Laxman case the Division Bench held that the tenant had become owner of the land on the Tillers' Day i.e. on which date the trust was not registered and hence no exemption certificate could be claimed by the trustees. In the Sri Laxminarayan v. Laxman case the Division Bench held that the tenant had become owner of the land on the Tillers' Day i.e. on which date the trust was not registered and hence no exemption certificate could be claimed by the trustees. In the instant case the trust was registered in 1953 and consequently the trust was the owner of the land on tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957 and therefore, the tenant could not become owner of the land on 1-4-1957, and as such had no rights to be heard at the time of grant of certificate under section 88-B nor could he claim benefit of section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. 12. For these reasons the submissions made by Mr. Dalvi can not be accepted and they are required to be rejected. Both the judgments cited by him and referred to above do not support him, to the contrary they help the respondent. 13. The objection of Mr. Dalvi that the petitioner was not given any notice nor was heard in the proceedings under section 88-B can not also be accepted because the petitioner had challenged this order of grant of certificate, but he was unsuccessful in his attempt. Once the petitioner has exercised his right of challenging the order of granting certificate, his argument of want of notice, can not be accepted. 14. It was also lastly and alternatively urged by Mr. Dalvi that in the revenue record the petitioner is still shown as a Kabjedar and the trust is not shown as owner. This argument is of no consequence now because the certificate granted under section 88-B of the Tenancy Act has become final after the challenge of the petitioner to the same was unsuccessful. For all these reasons I find no merits in this petition and 1 pass the following order :-- ORDER The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed.