SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1029

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
SHRI AMBADEVI SANSTHA & ORS. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9936 OF 2018 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.35049 OF 2013, C.A. NO.9938 OF 2018 @ S.L.P. [C] NO.35050 OF 2013, C.A. NO.9937 OF 2018 @ S.L.P. [C] NO.35051 OF 2013
Decided on : 25-09-2018

MAIN POINTS
It is incumbent upon Charity Commissioner to ascertain proper valuation of the properties and also to fix reserve piece for the same while granting permission.
Trust seeking permission to sell after accepting the earnest money is wholly improper and impermissible.
Mere acceptance of earnest money does not create any equity in favour of prospective purchaser.
Joint Charity Commissioner’s permission for the sale merely because earnest money was accepted by the Trust is illegal.
The apprehension that by rejecting the application for sale by the Trust after accepting earnest money would result in litigation by purchasers who has paid the earnest money and were in possession, cannot be a ground for according permission for sale.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 36 – Transactions for sale of Trust properties entered into in 1990 and 1994 – Applications for grant of permission filed in 1997/1998 – It was incumbent upon Charity Commissioner to ascertain proper valuation of the properties and also to fix reserve piece for the same while granting permission – Trust seeking permission to sell after accepting the earnest money – Wholly improper and impermissible – Mere acceptance of earnest money does not create any equity in favour of prospective purchaser – Joint Charity Commissioner erred in permitting the sale merely because earnest money was accepted by the Trust – Held, Joint Charity Commissioner failed to protect interest of the Trust. (Para 14, 15, 17, 20)

       (2017) 13 SCALE 44; (1986) 3 SCC 391; 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356; (2013) 11 SCC 531 – Relied upon

       (b) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 36 – Joint Charity Commissioner approving the sale on the ground that rejecting the application would result in litigation by purchasers who had paid earnest money and were in possession – Wholly impermissible and violative of Section 36. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       The erstwhile Secretary of the old body of the appellant Trust had applied to the Joint Charity Commissioner for grant of permission to sell the properties of Trust.

       At least two persons had raised objections before the Joint Charity Commissioner that they were ready to purchase the land at a much higher price up to Rs.25,000/and Rs.11,000/per acre.

       The newly elected body of the Trust approached the Joint Charity Commissioner and 15 trustees stated that Trust does not want to sell the properties.

       Despite the objection, the Joint Charity Commissioner had granted permission to sell the properties.

       Writ petitions were filed by the appellant Trust which has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Transactions of sale are illegal and hence annulled.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The appellant-Shri Ambadevi Sanstha, a registered Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the “Act of 1950”), has filed the instant appeals against the judgments and orders dated 3.5.2013 and 10.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein and confirming the order dated 8.10.1998 of the Joint Charity Commissioner with respect to sale of the properties of the Trust. The Trust had been permitted to execute sale deeds of field Survey No.270/A/1 of village Khar, Talegaon, admeasuring 11 acres and 28 gunthas and field Survey No.11 of Chandpur, admeasuring 4 acres and 8 gunthas to Mr. J.M. Karwa, field Survey No.202 of Khar, Talegaon, admeasuring 16 acres to Mr. Manish Jaikishore Karwa and 15 acres and 33 gunthas out of field Survey No.202 of Khar, Talegaon to Shri Ashish Jaikishore Karwa and 15 acres and 15 gunthas from Survey No.12 of Chandpur to Shri Girish Jaikishore Karwa at the rate of Rs.7,651/per acre.

2. The permission had also been granted by Joint Charity Commissioner to sell the immovable properties belonging to Trust i.e., House No.210, Plot No.228, Sheet No. 92A, admeasuring 174.8 sq. meters situated in Ward No.15 in Bhaji Bazar Mohalla at Amravati for Rs.3,11,000.

3. Permission had also been granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner to sell House No.998 in Ward No.59 Taluka Bedmaru, District Amravati for sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only).

4. The erstwhile Secretary of the old body of Trust had applied to the Joint Charity Commissioner for grant of permission to sell the properties of Trust. At least two persons had raised objections before the Joint Charity Commissioner that they were ready to purchase the land at a much higher price up to Rs.25,000/and Rs.11,000/per acre. The newly elected body of the Trust approached the Joint Charity Commissioner and 15 trustees stated that Trust does not want to sell the properties. Despite the objection, the Joint Charity Commissioner had granted permission to sell the properties. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitions were filed before the High Court by the Trust. The High Court vide impugned judgments and orders has dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the appeals have been preferred.

5. The Trust has raised the ground that Joint Charity Commissioner did not act as per intendment of Section 36 of the Act of 1950. The Joint Charity Commissioner has failed to observe that when the Trustees have stated on behalf of Trust that the properties should not be sold, the Joint Charity Commissioner ought not have passed the order directing sale of the properties. The principles governing exercise of power under Section 36 had not been adhered to. There was no necessity to sell the Trust properties. Apart from that, the permission for sale of properties for a meagre amount was not at all in the interest of the Trust. The objections were rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner for no good reason. The High Court has also committed illegality in dismissing the writ petitions.

6. It was contended on behalf of respondents that permission was granted to sell properties in the interest of the Trust as the Trust was not having proper income. The land is situated at a distance of 25 kms from Amravati. Three out of four lands are situated about 5 kms away from the locality of Khar Talegaon. The Trust wanted to construct a hospital. The Trust was in dire need of money and had decided to invite tenders on 1.6.1994 by advertisement for the sale of land and only one offer from Mr. Naresh Laxmanrao Bhatkar was received for purchase of land admeasuring 15 acres 15 gunthas at Chandpur at the rate of Rs.4,500/per acre. However, the said offer was not accepted by the Trust in the meeting dated 9.8.1994. Thereafter, second advertisement was published in the local newspapers in November and December, 1994. Varying offers for land between Rs.6,000/to Rs.9,000/per acre we























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top