JUDGMENT:- Rule was issued on 24.1.1997. Interim stay in terms of prayer clause (ii) operates. 2. The writ petitioner (land owner) feels aggrieved by the judgment of learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), dated 9th December, 1996, who confirmed the judgment of learned Tahsildar dated 14th July, 1986, accepting eligibility of the respondent (tenant) to pay purchase price in terms of Sections 46, 49-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short "Tenancy Act"), and set aside judgment of S.D.O, dated 6th October. 1986. 3. The status of the respective parties as land owner and tenant in respect of field Survey No.20, area 14 ares and 19 Gunthas at Mouza Wadali since 1951-52 is not in controversy. 4. The purchase proceedings were started in Revenue Case No.192/59 (13) of 1965-66 by the learned Tahsildar/Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Amravati (A.L.T. for short). Since the matter before learned ALT faced errors, the proceedings started under Section 49-A read with Section 46 of the Tenancy Act relating to six agricultural fields, were remanded by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Records, Amravati, enclosing copy of order dated 25th July, 1972. The ALT was directed to allow examination of Bhaurao Baldeo Khurade as a witness thoroughly to know full details of the case. The ALT was directed to enquire on the following points; (a) Enquiry in respect of the purpose for which the trust is created. (b) Enquiry in respect of the property owned by the trust should be made. (c) Report of Chief Officer, Amravati should be obtained and enquiry to be made whether the fields in question are situated within the boundaries of Municipal Council. 5. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Amravati, being asked by ALT, by his certificate dated 14.2.1974 informed the fields are at Wadali and land Survey No.11 was situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Amravati. 6. In the said enquiry, the learned A.L.T. Amravati by his order dated 30th March, 1974, observed in paragraph 5 as under: "5. Enquiry from the C.O. Amraoti reveals that all the suit fields are not situated that the boundaries of Municipality of Amraoti from as all the fields in question are the property of the public religious trust namely Shri. Mahadeo Sansthan Wadai which trust is eligible for exemption certificate u/s.129B of the Tenancy Act. Enquiry from the C.O. Amraoti reveals that all the suit fields are not situated that the boundaries of Municipality of Amraoti from as all the fields in question are the property of the public religious trust namely Shri. Mahadeo Sansthan Wadai which trust is eligible for exemption certificate u/s.129B of the Tenancy Act. The tenants in all the six cases are not entitled to purchase the field cultivated then u/s.41 of the tenancy Act and as such they are not entitled to transfer of ownership of fields in question under section 46 or 49-A of the Tenancy Act." 7. Then again the tenant approached the learned ALT by an application dated 5.2.1986 for fixation of price of land. He informed the ALT about his possession over the field since 1951-52 and accrual of right to purchase the suit field. The exemption certificate as was required in terms of Section 129(B) of the Tenancy Act was not obtained by landlord and hence, tenant urged, he has a right to purchase the land. A hearing was given to the landlord and tenant. ALT accepted tenant's eligibility for fixation of purchase price. 8. In pursuance to order dated 14th July 1986, by learned ALT. the tenant has, deposited the purchase price of Rs.1,660.56 and consequently, purchase certificate was issued in his favour and registered on 29.7.1986. The tenant has become a absolute owner of the land. 9. Several submissions were advanced by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/land owner. The gravamen is, once there is an order of A.L.T. dated 30th March, 1974 and not subjected to any challenge by the tenant, it operates as res-judicata, consequently, other authorities are not competent to reopen the issue. The requirement of collecting exemption certificate in terms of Section 129(b) from the learned Collector by the land owner, is not mandatory and it is sufficient if evidence is adduced that the entire income of such land is appropriated for the purpose of the trust. 10. The learned counsel for the tenant informs,. the order dated 30th March. 1974, is beyond the scope of the said authority as the authority/ALT travelled to the area not authorised to deal, and the directions given to him. The findings of ALT concerning eligibility of exemption certificate under section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act would not tantamount to a certificate by a competent authority. the order dated 30th March. 1974, is beyond the scope of the said authority as the authority/ALT travelled to the area not authorised to deal, and the directions given to him. The findings of ALT concerning eligibility of exemption certificate under section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act would not tantamount to a certificate by a competent authority. He submits, the learned ALT erred in making observations of landlord's eligibility in terms of Section 129(b) as the jurisdiction exclusively vests with the Collector. For that purpose, a audience to the aggrieved tenant is contemplated. The landlord applied for certificate of exemption in 5 cases of other tenants only who were also party to the proceedings, decided on 30th March, 1974, landlord did not apply for exemption certificate concerning lands possessed by tenant/respondent. It was because, the trust has decided not to obtain exemption certificate for suit land, consequently, effect of Sections 46 and 49-A of Tenancy Act will operate in favour of tenant to get the purchase price fixed. 11. Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act, 1958, reads as under; "129. Exemption from certain provisions to lands held by local authorities, Universities. trusts etc. Nothing in the foregoing provisions except section 2, the provision of Chapter II (excluding sections 21, 22, 23, 21 and 37) and Section 91 and the provisions of Chapters X and XII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in sections mentioned above shall apply (a) to lands held or leased by a local authority, or university established by law in the State. (b) to lands which are the property of a trust for an educational purpose, hospital, Panjaqrpole, Gaushala, or an institution for public religious worship, provided the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust; and (c) .......... (d) .......... Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (b), a certificate granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry, that the conditions mentioned in the said clause are satisfied by the trust shall be the conclusive evidence in that behalf." 12. In the light of Section 129(b), making its applicability even to Chapters X and XII, it shall apply to lands which are the property of a trust. In the light of Section 129(b), making its applicability even to Chapters X and XII, it shall apply to lands which are the property of a trust. Having analyzed this situation, it hardly matters if the learned ALT without conferring of powers to him dwell upon in his judgment to hold that the trust is eligible for exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act. Basically the learned ALT was not called upon to decide eligibility in terms of Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act, as the jurisdiction vests with the Collector. The order of remand by learned S.D.O. to A.L.T. dated 25th July, 1972, required A.L.T. to ponder upon the directions given. 13. The contention of land owner that exemption under Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act can be entertained by the learned ALT in terms of Section 98 is incorrect. Provisions of Section 129(b) of the Tenancy Act are independent in its nature. The ALT will not be permitted to canvass in terms of Section 129(b). I hold, Section 129(b) exemption certificate is mandatory if any trust wants to take shelter of exemption being a educational institution or other exemptions stated in it. The ALT has to decide any dispute whether the ownership of any land is transferred to and vests in a tenant under Sections 46, 49-A or Section 49-B or he has to decide any dispute as to the particular area of the land to be purchased under Sections 41,46 and 49-A. He has necessarily to determine the reasonable price of the land under Section 43 and Section 91. The order passed by the learned ALT dated 30th March, 1974 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. Such order need not be coined to invoke procedural principles of resjudicata. That apart, the eligibility in terms of Section 129(b) and obtaining certificate thereof are not to be equated. As the circumstances changed, the owner having not opted for exemption, the tenant was within his right to approach the learned ALT seeking fixation of sale price. 14. The other facet in the matter is, for obtaining exemption certificate under Section 129(b), an enquiry is contemplated. The trust has to establish that all its income are utilized and appropriated for educational purposes. 14. The other facet in the matter is, for obtaining exemption certificate under Section 129(b), an enquiry is contemplated. The trust has to establish that all its income are utilized and appropriated for educational purposes. It is now well settled, when valuable property rights of a party are affected, such authority is duty bound to serve a notice upon the person whose rights are going to be adversely affected. The explanation provides for a enquiry. The principles of natural justice demands that the valuable property rights should not be deprived without the person being given sufficient opportunity to meet the claim. When the right to seek exemption certificate is sought, the Collector has to conclude the enquiry on assessing the evidence, documents and afford an opportunity to the tenant to meet the same. The findings of the learned ALT dated 30th March, 1974, does not even meet basic requirement of giving hearing for benefit of exemption or eligibility of the trust for exemption, though such contemplated act was beyond his purview. 15. In the similarly placed situation, the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the matter of Hirabai Baburao Shidankar and another Vs. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara and others ( 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 117 : [2009(1) ALL MR 745]), has held, "in terms of Section 88-B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the order of issuance of exemption certificate being without serving any notice upon the tenant and such certificate issued without observing principles of natural justice, does not bind the tenants. The order of issuance of exemption certificate vitiated". 16. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shri. Keraba Dattau Borachate and others Vs. Shri. Sheshashai and Vishnu Trust (1990 Mh.L.J.1183), while dealing with Sections 88-B and 88-C of the Act, observed that, "legislature never intended, not to give any hearing to the tenant". The aforesaid view of the Division Bench has further been followed in subsequent judgment in the matter of Bhimrao Chandru Patil and others Vs. Balkrishna Dattatraya Joshi and others ( 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 125 ). 17. There is no quarrel, the trust is entitled to seek exemption certificate on fulfillment of the requirement provided under Section 129(b) of the Act. The aforesaid view of the Division Bench has further been followed in subsequent judgment in the matter of Bhimrao Chandru Patil and others Vs. Balkrishna Dattatraya Joshi and others ( 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 125 ). 17. There is no quarrel, the trust is entitled to seek exemption certificate on fulfillment of the requirement provided under Section 129(b) of the Act. However, in such enquiry, the tenant is at liberty to establish that the requirements ordained are not scrupulously observed and there was a failure by the trust, as the funds are not utilized and appropriated for the purposes of educational expenses or any hostel activity of the trust. 18. I hold, the order of learned ALT, dated 30th March, 1974, will not operate as res-judicata. The tenant was in order to move later on to the ALT for an order of paying purchase price. 19. The land owner/Trust did not make any application for grant of exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act, particularly against the tenant/respondent concerning Survey No.20. The agricultural filed was even after the order dated 30th March, 1974 remained with the tenant till 1984, when it was acquired for the purposes of Amravati University. In the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the decision is in favour of the tenant. The tenant's right to become a statutory owner of the land of which he was a tenant by virtue of Section 46 w.e.f. 1.4.1961 remained unbridled. The owner/trust at any time did not terminate the tenancy of tenant/respondent and consequently the tenant has become statutory owner of the field by virtue of operation transgraced in Section 46 of the Tenancy Act. The purchase price having been determined by the competent authority, and ownership certificate as stated earlier being issued, the order of ALT dated 14.7.1986 or that of the learned MRT dated 9th December, 1996, does not require any interference. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. With costs. 20. Heard. The operation of the order is stayed upto 16th August, 2010. Petition dismissed.