JUDGMENT : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties and taken up forthwith for final disposal. 2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 27th November 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short “the MRT”] in Revision Application No. TNC/REV/PAL/152/2019. By the said judgment, MRT dismissed the revision application filed by the Petitioners challenging the exemption certificate granted under Section 88B (2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act [For short “the Tenancy Act”] by the Sub Divisional Officer, Palghar [for short “the SDO”]. The Petitioners and their predecessors in title are referred to interchangeably as Petitioners and the Respondent No 1 Trust and the Trustees are referred to as Respondents. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The subject land in respect of which the exemption certificate has been granted is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 942 admeasuring 108 acres situated at Village Mahim, Taluka and District Palghar. Survey No 942 was leased by the State Government for period of 999 years. By an indenture of lease dated 6th October 1944, the Respondents initially granted a lease to the Petitioners for a period of 12 years which was extended for a period of 10 years till 8th June 1962 and the Petitioners continued in possession of the suit land even thereafter. 4. On 11th July 1969, the Respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 1969 in the Civil Court seeking possession of the suit land from the Petitioners. On 13th February 1974 by virtue of compromise arrived at between the parties, consent terms were executed under which the Petitioners, who were in actual possession of the land admeasuring 1,518 acres and 2¼ gunthas, retained possession of 108 acres of land i.e. subject land in one compact area upon payment of rent and agreed to hand over physical possession of the remaining land admeasuring 1,410 acres and 2¼ gunthas to the Respondents. The Respondents agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Petitioners as reimbursement of actual agricultural development expenses incurred by the parties between 1930 and 1955 and not to disturb the possession of Petitioners and their heirs in respect of the said retained land. PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) ACT, 1961: 5. The Respondents agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Petitioners as reimbursement of actual agricultural development expenses incurred by the parties between 1930 and 1955 and not to disturb the possession of Petitioners and their heirs in respect of the said retained land. PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) ACT, 1961: 5. By an order dated 28th February, 1973, the Sub Divisional Officer in an inquiry under Section 14 to 21 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 against the Respondents delimited about 1350 Acres 2 gunthas and 4 Annas land as surplus, however, the taking over of the surplus land and its distribution was stayed by order dated 25th October, 1975. An application came to be filed by the Respondents on 17th November, 1975 before the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue requesting acceptance of surrender of about 449 acres of land and for grant of exemption to the remaining land. The Application came to be rejected as against which petitions were filed before the High Court which were allowed and the matter was remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration. The State Government carried the matter in appeal before the Apex Court, which came to be dismissed on 25th July 1991. Vide order dated 22nd July, 2005 which was notified in the Government Gazette on 6th June, 2009, the Hon'ble Minister directed the Petitioners to surrender 1410 Acres 2/12 gunthas to the Respondents who shall pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the Petitioners, the Petitioners to retain 108 Acres as tenants and exemption was granted upon 449 acres being surrendered by the Respondents to the State Government and 40% of the income from the exempted land to be utilised for educational purpose of the locals of District Thane. PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 32G OF TENANCY ACT: 6. Tenancy Case No. 3 of 2004 was instituted by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar and ALT, Palghar for fixation of purchase price in respect of 108 acres of land under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. The application came to be allowed vide order dated 21st April, 2005. Pursuant thereto the Petitioners paid the purchase price and Section 32M certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioners. 7. Respondents challenged the Tahsildar's order before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). The application came to be allowed vide order dated 21st April, 2005. Pursuant thereto the Petitioners paid the purchase price and Section 32M certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioners. 7. Respondents challenged the Tahsildar's order before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). Vide order dated 14th May 2007, SDO set aside the order of Tahsildar on the ground that the procedure was not followed and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. 8. Respondents challenged the order of remand before MRT, being Revision Application No. 93 of 2007, which was dismissed by order dated 6th January 2010. 9. Writ Petition No. 3683 of 2010 was filed by the Respondents against the order of MRT which came to be disposed of with a direction to decide the application within six months. 10. After remand the Tenancy Application was renumbered as Tenancy Application No. 6 of 2010. On 28th July, 2016 the Tahshildar and ALT rejected the Application holding that it will not be appropriate to determine the purchase price in light of pendency of Section 88B certificate inquiry. PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 88B(2) OF TENANCY ACT: 11. Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2012 was instituted by the Respondent on 18th February 2010 seeking exemption of the subject land under the provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act. 12. On 23rd October 2012, the SDO rejected the application. The Respondents challenged the order of SDO before MRT. Vide order dated 23rd March 2015, MRT remanded the matter with directions to permit the parties to lead evidence on the point as to whether the income received from the land in possession of the tenants is utilised for the purpose of trust. 13. MRT's order of remand was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 9871 of 2016 which is still pending. 14. On 25th July 2016, SDO allowed the application of trust and granted exemption certificate under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act which was challenged by the Petitioners before the MRT on the ground that no opportunity was given to the Petitioners to counter the affidavit of trust. 15. On 16th November 2017, MRT allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to SDO with a direction to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to deal with the affidavit dated 7th April 2016 filed by the Respondents and also to permit the parties to lead evidence. 15. On 16th November 2017, MRT allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to SDO with a direction to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to deal with the affidavit dated 7th April 2016 filed by the Respondents and also to permit the parties to lead evidence. 16. On 28th February 2019, SDO allowed application of trust under Section 88B(2) of the Tenancy Act and granted exemption certificate to the Respondent Trust. 17. Petitioner challenged the order of SDO before the MRT in Revision Application No. 152 of 2019 which was rejected by the impugned order dated 27th November 2019. SUBMISSIONS: 18. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners would submit that the issues which will arise for consideration are whether the Petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit land and in possession of the same as on 1st April 1957. Secondly, whether the ingredients of Section 88B(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act were satisfied by the Respondents and whether the activities of the Respondent Trust fall within the specified categories so as to entitle the trust to claim exemption. He would further submit that for the purpose of fulfilling the criteria that the entire income of trust land is appropriated for the purpose of trust, the utilisation is to be shown as on 1st April 1957. He submits that the Petitioners were having tenancy rights over the suit land since 1944, i.e., since prior to tiller's date, which has been admitted in various proceedings. He submits that the compromise decree would show that landlord has accepted the possession of tenant on the entire land and it was subsequently agreed that 108 acres of land, i.e., the suit land, will be retained with the Petitioners. He would further submit that even the exemption granted under Section 47(2)(a) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 by order dated 22nd July 2005 was on the basis that the tenants and their successors will have tenancy rights over the subject land. He submits that despite the Respondents having accepted the tenancy rights in Section 32G proceedings by statement recorded on 17th June 2008 still challenged the order passed in 32G proceedings. He would further submit that during the entire litigation between the parties, provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act were not invoked by the Trust and the delay in filing application is not even explained. He would further submit that during the entire litigation between the parties, provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act were not invoked by the Trust and the delay in filing application is not even explained. He would submit that by operation of law, the Petitioners have become owners of the suit land as on 1st April 1957 and had also complied with necessary formalities including the payment of purchase price which at one point of time resulted in issuance of certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act and therefore subsequent application of the trust under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act cannot be entertained. On the aspect of non fulfillment of requirements of Section 88B(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act, Mr. Kumbhakoni draws attention of this Court to the said provision and would submit that the exemption can be granted to the lands which is the property of trust for either educational purpose, hospital, Panjarapole, Gaushala or an institution of public religious worship and the trust which is established for charitable purpose will not fall in the specified categories. He submits that application of Respondents mentions that the purpose of trust is charitable and educational. He would further submit that the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act provides that the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purpose of such trust. He submits that in the present case, the Respondent has produced the audit reports from the year 1989 onward and not from the period 1st April 1957. He submits that the said issue has been settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Kondiba Laxman v. Krishnarao, 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 324 wherein it has been specifically held that the authority is required to examine on the basis of material that the entire income of suit land was appropriated for the purpose of trust as on 1st April 1957, which is a relevant date for issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act. He submits that it is not even the case of the trust that the entire income is spent for charitable purpose and the application merely states that most of the income is spent for charitable purpose. He submits that it is not even the case of the trust that the entire income is spent for charitable purpose and the application merely states that most of the income is spent for charitable purpose. He submits that the finding of the MRT that for staking claim for exemption, the trust is not required to account the expenses for the purposes earmarked for the period from 1st April 1957 is contrary to the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Kondiba (supra). He would further submit that the MRT has erroneously held that the Respondents has established that the entire income of such land is appropriated for educational purpose and hospital. In support, Mr. Kumbhakoni relies upon Shri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459 . 19. Per contra Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that as regards the submission that the Petitioners have become deemed purchaser as on tiller's day, provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act came on the statute book by the Act of 1957 along with Section 32. He submits that sub-clause (2) of Section 88B was inserted by amending Act No. 38 of 1957 whereas the amendment to Section 32 was on 1st August 1956. He submits that Rule 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 was incorporated on 13th November 1957. He submits that the provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act, prior to amendment by incorporating sub-section (2) in the year 1957 did not have any requirement of obtaining a certificate which came subsequently. He submits that the provisions of Section 88B as it stood in 1957 exempted the lands which are properties of trust from the provisions specified therein. He submits that Section 32G did not apply to the government leased land by virtue of Section 88 of the Tenancy Act. 20. He submits that as far as delay in filing the application under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act is concerned, for the period from 1973 to 2005 by reason of orders passed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, the land vested in Government as surplus land. He submits that it is only when the land was released by virtue of notification in the year 2009 that the trust could have applied for exemption. He submits that it is only when the land was released by virtue of notification in the year 2009 that the trust could have applied for exemption. He would further submit that the factual position which cannot be disputed is that the land was declared as surplus land from the year 1973 onward till the same was released in the year 2009 and during this period the land vested in the State Government and therefore the application for Section 88B certificate was filed in the year 2010. 21. He would further submit that in any event the provisions of Section 88 exempted the government land from the provisions of Tenancy Act and it is an admitted position that from 1973 till 2005, land vested in the Government. He would further draw the attention of this Court to the consent terms and submit that what was permitted was retention of the suit land by the tenant and that the Petitioners were to pay the rent in respect of the land which consent terms were executed on 13th February 1974. He submits that as such there is no question of any income from the land as on 1st April 1957. He submits that the Petitioner were recognized as tenant for the first time in the year 1974 and therefore there was no rent and no income as on 1st April 1957. Pointing out to the order dated 28th February 2019 passed by the SDO in the appeal proceedings, he submits that the specific case of Petitioner was that no rent was paid as the Petitioners became owner of the property under the Tenancy Act and therefore having been declared as tenant on tiller's date, there is no question of payment of rent. He points out the contention of Petitioners, which is noted by the SDO in Tenancy Appeal No. 26 of 2017, that from the date of deemed purchase, the liability to pay the rent ceases. He submits that thus there was no rent paid and what was paid was rental of Rs.544.10 paise only for three years which has been properly accounted for. 22. He submits that it has been placed on record that expenses of the trust were around Rs.22 lakh and thus the rental income of around Rs.1600/- is consumed in the expenses of Rs.22 lakh and thus the second requirement of Section 88B certificate is also met. 22. He submits that it has been placed on record that expenses of the trust were around Rs.22 lakh and thus the rental income of around Rs.1600/- is consumed in the expenses of Rs.22 lakh and thus the second requirement of Section 88B certificate is also met. He submits that the words “such lands” occurring in proviso (ii) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act would indicate that the entire income derivable by the trust in respect of only such lands in respect of which the exemption certificate is sought is required to be shown as appropriated for the purpose of trust and not the entire income in respect of other lands in respect of which no exemption has been sought. In support of his submissions, he relies upon Laxmibai S. Patil v. Badashah Sultan Mutwali, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 102. REASONS AND ANALYSIS: 23. In support of the challenge to the grant of exemption certification under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act to the subject land the submissions raised by Mr. Kumbhakoni can be broadly summarised as under: (a) By reason of statutory operation of law the Petitioners have become the deemed purchaser of the subject land as on tillers day i.e. 1st April, 1957 and the tenancy rights have been recognised by the Respondents in various proceedings. (b) There is non fulfillment of the twin conditions specified in the proviso to clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 88B of Tenancy Act. 24. The parent Act i.e. Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 came to be amended by the State Legislature in the year 1956 by Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Amendment) Act, 1956 which came into force on 1st August, 1956. The main effect of the amendment was that on tillers day i.e. on 1st August, 1957, every tenant was deemed to have purchased the land held by him as tenant. As a result of the amendment, as on 1st April, 1957, the landlord tenant relationship came to an end and the title vested in the tenants defeasible only in certain contingencies specified therein. By the same amending Act, Section 88B was also added to the parent Act. Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 88B along with the proviso to that sub section reads thus: 88B. By the same amending Act, Section 88B was also added to the parent Act. Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 88B along with the proviso to that sub section reads thus: 88B. Exemption on certain provisions to land of local authorities, universities and trusts: (1) Nothing in the foregoing provisions except sections 3, 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 11, 13 and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above, shall apply: (a).......... (b) to lands which are property of a trust for an educational purpose, 4 [a hospital, Panjarapole, Gaushala] or an institution for public religious worship: Provided that: (i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. (ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust. Provided that: (i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. (ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust.” Sub-Section (2) providing for grant of certificate was added by subsequent amendment by Bombay Amendment Act 38 of 1957 and reads thus: “(2) For the purposes of this section, a certificate granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry, that the conditions in the proviso to sub section (1) are satisfied by any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that behalf.” 25. The obstacle in the way of the Petitioners right to deemed purchase of the suit land as on 1st April, 1957 is the introduction of Section 88B by the same amending Act which introduced Section 32 in the Tenancy Act. The statutory position existing on the date of the amendment which came into force w.e.f 1st August, 1956 is that Section 32 was inapplicable to the lands which were the properties of the trust of the specified categories by virtue of Section 88B. Therefore, as on 1st April 1957 the lands of the trust of specified categories were exempt from Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and tenants of such lands could not claim deemed ownership. 26. The acknowledgment of the Petitioners as tenants by the Respondents in various proceedings as pointed out by Mr. Therefore, as on 1st April 1957 the lands of the trust of specified categories were exempt from Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and tenants of such lands could not claim deemed ownership. 26. The acknowledgment of the Petitioners as tenants by the Respondents in various proceedings as pointed out by Mr. Kumbhakoni will not impact the exemption of the lands of the trust from application of Section 32 upon satisfaction of the twin conditions specified in proviso to Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 88B of Tenancy Act. The Petitioners would thus become deemed purchaser subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Kondiba (supra) has held that if the trust was to succeed in getting certificate under Section 88B, then it would necessarily follow that the person cultivating the land cannot become deemed purchaser as such, but his right to remain in possession of the land would be subject to other provisions of the Tenancy Act. 27. Coming to the issue of grant of exemption certificate, the challenge is mounted by the Petitioners on the ground that firstly the Respondent Trust does not fall within the categories specified in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 88 of Tenancy Act. The requirement of Clause (b) is that the Trust should be for an educational purpose, hospital, Panjarepole, gaushala or an institution for public religious worship. Rule 52 of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 prescribes the procedure for grant of certificate by the Collector and reads thus: “52. Procedure for grant of certificate by the collector for the purpose of Section 88B. (1) A trustee in charge of a trust for an educational purpose, a hospital, Panjarapole, Gaushala or an institution for public religious worship claiming exemption under Sub-Section (1) of Section 88B may make an application in writing to the Collector within whose jurisdiction all or most of the pieces of land belonging to the trust are situated for the grant of a certificate for the purpose of Section 88B. (2) The trustee shall state in his application: (a) whether the trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. (b) the purpose for which the trust is created. (c) the manner in which the income from the lands belonging to it is appropriated. (2) The trustee shall state in his application: (a) whether the trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. (b) the purpose for which the trust is created. (c) the manner in which the income from the lands belonging to it is appropriated. He shall append to his application: (i) the balance-sheet certified by a registered auditor. (ii) a list of the lands which are the property of the trust. (iii) certified copies of extracts of Record of Right relating to the lands. (iv) such other documents in support of his request. (3) On receipt of such application, the Collector shall hold an inquiry and if he is satisfied that the trust satisfies the conditions laid down in the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 88B, shall issue a certificate to that effect in Form XXIII.” 28. As far as the registration of the Respondent Trust is concerned, it was registered on 4th October, 1953 about which there is no dispute. In the application filed by the Respondent the purpose of the Trust is stated to be charitable and educational. The income of the Trust is stated to apportioned for education, medical treatment, poverty alleviation, religious and others. 29. For applicability of Section 88B, the condition of the Trust being for educational purpose stands satisfied in the present case. For acquisition of exemption, the first condition that the trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is fulfilled. Now coming to the second condition that the entire income of such lands is required to be shown as appropriated for the purposes of such trust, Mr. Kumbhakoni will rely on the application to canvas that the entire income of the trust was not appropriated for the purpose of trust. The fallacy of the said submission is that the condition is that the entire income of such lands i.e. the income from the lands in respect of which the exemption is sought should be appropriated for the purpose of the trust and not the entire income of the trust from various sources. 30. The second limb of challenge is that the entire income is required to be shown to have been appropriated for the purposes of the Trust as on 1st April, 1957 by drawing support from the decision of Kondiba (supra). 30. The second limb of challenge is that the entire income is required to be shown to have been appropriated for the purposes of the Trust as on 1st April, 1957 by drawing support from the decision of Kondiba (supra). Learned Single Judge of this Court in Kondiba (supra) was considering the requirement of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act and held that the entitlement of trust to get certificate under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act will have to be reckoned as on 1st April 1957. While remanding the matter, the learned Single Judge has further directed the authority to examine as to whether the material on record will establish the position that the entire income of suit land was appropriated for the purpose of trust as on 1st April 1957 which will be relevant date for issuance of certificate under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act. 31. The position has been settled by the learned Single Judge and what is required to be shown is that the entire income from the subject land was appropriated for the purpose of trust as on 1st April 1957. The application filed by the trust in the year 2010 states that the audited statements of accounts for the last three years along with balance sheet is being filed. In the affidavit of evidence dated 7th April 2016 filed by the trustee on behalf of the trust the witness has deposed that the yearly rent of the suit land was Rs.544.10 paise and the rent was paid by the tenant for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 which has been included in the audited report. He has further produced the audited reports for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. In the additional affidavit of evidence, he has further deposed that while the matter was pending before the Apex Court, no rent was paid by the tenant and for the first time, rent was paid for the period 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2003 and thereafter for the period 1st April 2003 to 31st March 2004 and 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005. He has also produced the audited statements of the trust from the year 1989-90 showing the income from the property of the trust which is being utilised for the educational and medical needs. He has also produced the audited statements of the trust from the year 1989-90 showing the income from the property of the trust which is being utilised for the educational and medical needs. He has deposed that expenses of the trust are substantially more than that of rent and the same has been utilised for the purpose of trust. Pertinently, the contention of Petitioner before the SDO, which has been rightly pointed by Mr. Karandikar, is that as the Petitioner has become tenant on the tiller's date, there is no question of payment of rent. It is undisputed that the matter was remanded to the SDO to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to traverse the affidavit dated 7th April 2016 and allow the parties to lead evidence. Mr. Kumbhakoni, has not been able to point from the cross-examination or even from the evidence of petitioners that rent was regularly paid apart from the years which has been deposed by the witness for the trust. As the rentals were paid for the period of three years which has been appropriated for the purpose of expenses of trust of about Rs. 22 lakh, the rentals of Rs.1,600/- are subsumed in the expenses of Rs.22 lakh. 32. In the absence of any material to demonstrate the contrary, MRT has rightly accepted the accounts which disclosed the income received from the tenant and its appropriation for purposes of trust. The MRT has rightly considered the details of the expenses indicated in the audited balance sheet which would show that the expenses were more than rental received and which were utilised for the purposes of trust. Although the finding of MRT as regards the appropriation of income as on 1st April 1957 is in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Kondiba (supra), it needs to be noted that in the present case, it has been established by the trust that income from the said land was only for a period of 3 years i.e. about Rs 1,600/- and the same has been appropriated for the purposes of trust. The Respondents have established that there was no income from subject lands as on 1st April 1957 and thus there was no requirement of producing accounts from 1st April 1957. The audited accounts of the relevant period were submitted by the Respondents and rightly accepted by MRT. 33. The Respondents have established that there was no income from subject lands as on 1st April 1957 and thus there was no requirement of producing accounts from 1st April 1957. The audited accounts of the relevant period were submitted by the Respondents and rightly accepted by MRT. 33. Coming to the third ground of challenge about the delay in filing application for exemption as the same has been filed in the year 2010, it is an admitted position that during the period 1973 to 2009, the subject land was declared surplus and vested in the Government under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The application filed in the year 2010 after the release of the lands, for grant of exemption under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act cannot be said to suffer from delay. The fact remains that provisions of Section 32 would not apply to the land of a trust established for educational purposes. By Amendment Act of 1957 introducing Sub-Section (2) to Section 88B of the Tenancy Act, what has been incorporated is that the certificate which is granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry becomes conclusive evidence in that behalf. Therefore, the certificate became conclusive proof of position that the twin conditions are satisfied by the Trust. Even without introduction of Sub-Section (2), the provisions of Sub-Section (1) could have been established by the trust by leading necessary evidence in that regard. The inapplicability of the provisions of Section 32 to the lands of the trust is not dependent upon obtaining of certificate under Sub-Section (2) of Section 88B. 34. It also needs to be noted that at the time when the application for Section 88B certificate was filed, the proceedings under Section 32G were under consideration by the SDO, who has thereafter declined to consider the application in view of the pendency of Section 88B proceedings. Even if the application has been made subsequently by the trust under Section 88B of Tenancy Act, Section 32 of Tenancy Act is inapplicable to the land of the trust established for educational purpose. It is thus irrelevant as to whether the application by the trust under Section 88B of Tenancy Act was subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 32G of Tenancy Act by the Petitioner. 35. In the light of above, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the MRT. It is thus irrelevant as to whether the application by the trust under Section 88B of Tenancy Act was subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 32G of Tenancy Act by the Petitioner. 35. In the light of above, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the MRT. Petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 36. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the pending civil/interim applications and the same stand disposed of. 37. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks stay of the present judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that no proceedings will be initiated for a period of 8 weeks from today. The judgment is stayed for a period of 8 weeks from today.