ORDER

CAs Nos. 8661-62 of 2003

1. The subject-matter of the appeals relates to an order passed by the High Court arising out of the proceedings initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). These proceedings were initially initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 who are all trustees of M/s Ramgufa Ramji Mandir Trust at Mathawada, Ta Talaja, Gujarat. Their application was based on the ground that the property in question belonged to them and not to the Trust. Their application was allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was challenged under Section 70 of the Act by one Uday Kumar H. Dave, an Advocate who claimed to be a worshipper of the deity in respect of which the Trust has been set up. The Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed his appeal. He filed a further appeal before the District Court under Section 72(1) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed. He then filed a further appeal under Section 72(4) of the Act before the High Court. During the pendency of the first appeal, the said Uday Kumar H. Dave filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, for a declaration that the lands in question belonged to the Trust and the amount of compensation deposited before the District Court at Bhavnagar by reason of the acquisition of the disputed land by the Gujarat Maritime Board should either be forfeited to the Government or to the Trust and not be given to Respondents 7 to 18. A prayer was also made to restrain the District Court, Bhavnagar from proceeding with the disbursement of the compensation a amount which has been deposited by the Gujarat Maritime Board in respect of the acquired lands.

2. In the meanwhile, the lands, prior to their acquisition had been sold by Respondents 7 to 18 to the appellant and the appellants had paid the consideration there for to Respondents 7 to 18 being amounts of Rs 4,10,50,000 in CA No. 8662 of 2003 and Rs 56,650 in CA No. 8661 of b 2003.

3. It is also to be noted that a suit had been filed by certain persons in a representative capacity claiming, inter alia, that the property in question belonged to the Trust. That suit was also pending.

4. The High Court allowed the writ application and directed that the amount of compensation should be forfeited by the Government and that C Respondents 7 to 18 had no title to the land in question which would enable them to apply under Section 22-A of the 1950 Act. The High Court summarised its findings as under:

"(i) Once the lands in question were public trust properties, the same having been acquired for the public purpose, the compensation should go d only to the temple or should be forfeited by the Government.

(ii) Respondents 7 to 18 had no title to the land in question which would enable them to apply under Section 22-A of the BPT Act.

(iii) The Assistant Charity Commissioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, could not have entertained the application under Section 22-A either on facts or in law.

(iv) The lands in question were exempted under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and the effect of declaration made by late Narbheram/late Durlabhram has not been taken into consideration by authority while dealing with the application under Section 22-A of the Act.

(v) The original grant made by the then State of Bhavnagar has been f ignored without any valid reason.

(vi) The occupancy certificate under the Barkhali Abolition Act specifically described the lands as 'Ramgufa Ange' and this description cannot be ignored, more so, in the light of the scheme of the Barkhali Abolition Act discussed hereinbefore."

5. The High Court also held that the entire proceedings initiated under 9 Section 22-A of the 1950 Act were bad in law. The orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Judge were quashed. The first appeal preferred by the said Dave was declared to have become infructuous. A