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

2019 Supreme(Bom) 2191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. Dharmadhikari, R.I. Chagla, JJ.
Haji Ismail Haji Habib Musafirkhana - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 743 of 2019; Interim Application No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 11-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate, Sana Y Baugwala, Advocate, Ritwik Joshi, Advocate, Baugwala Yusuf Suleman, Advocate, B.V. Samant, Advocate, Anirban Tripathy, Advocate, Raman Paranjape, Advocate, Virag Tulzapurkar, Advocate, Soumya Shrikrishna, Advocate, Chirag Kamdar, Advocate, Denzil, Advocate, Nanki, Advocate, Apeksha, Advocate, Paridhi, Advocate, Divya Parab, Advocate, R. Momin, Advocate

The Court upheld the Charity Commissioner's authority under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act for trust property sale, emphasizing the distinction between public trusts and waqfs, and confirmed the legality of private sales without mandatory public notice.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36(1)(a) - The petition challenged the Charity Commissioner's order permitting the sale of trust property by trustees for redevelopment purposes; the Court upheld the Charity Commissioner’s authority under Section 36, emphasizing the legal necessity for the sale due to the property’s dilapidated state and encumbrances. (Paras 6, 18, 92)

(B) Public Trusts - The distinction between Muslim Waqfs and Trusts is clear; Trust properties do not vest in God, allowing trustees to manage their properties as per the MPT Act. (Paras 88, 90)

(C) Sale of Trust Property - The Charity Commissioner’s duty includes considering the interest, benefit, and protection of the Trust; public notice is not mandatory in all cases; the approval of a private sale can be justified under certain circumstances. (Paras 70, 92)

(D) Waqf Act, 1995 - The petitioners failed to prove the Trust's status as a Waqf and thus could not challenge the sale under Waqf Act provisions. (Paras 57, 78) (E) Final Ruling - The petition was dismissed, and the interim order was not continued, affirming the legitimacy of the property sale without public advertisement. (Paras 93, 96)

Table of Content
1. court proceedings were consolidated and processed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. trust's application for property sale details. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. charity commissioner's powers detailed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. summary of the trust's legal standing and history. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. legacy and structure of property relevance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. legal arguments on waqf vs. mpt act. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
7. legal standard for property sale validation. (Para 80 , 81 , 82)
8. final court decision and order conclusion. (Para 93 , 94 , 96)

JUDGMENT

S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. - By the earlier orders, this writ petition was placed before this Division Bench.

2. After the earlier orders were brought to the notice of both sides, we indicated to them that this writ petition will be disposed of by this Bench. On their agreement, recorded on 19th November, 2019, this writ petition was placed alongwith other matters and after the other matters were disposed of, we placed this matter before us.

3. Since all pleadings are complete and detailed arguments have been canvassed, this writ petition is disposed of by this judgment and order.

4. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

5. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26th November, 2015, copy of which is at Exhibit ''B'' to the petition. That order is passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State in Application No.48 of 2012.

6. The application was moved seeking sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 (1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, "the MPT Act"). The Trust in question is, "Haji Ismail Haji Habib Musafirkhana Trust", P.T.R.No.B/140 (Mumbai). The order impugned in this petition allows this application and directs as under:

"1) Application is allowed.

2) Sanction is hereby accorded under Section 36 (1) (a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the trustees of Haji Ismail Haji Habib Musafirkhana Trust, P.T.R.No.B/140 (Mumbai) to sell the property i.e. Sanadi land with standing structure thereon situated at the junction of Yacub Street, Sheikh Abdulla Pakmodia Street and Edulji Cooper 2nd Street, Mumbai admeasuring 842.82 sq.mtrs. equivalent to 961 square yards or thereabouts bearing Cadastral Survey No.4315 of Bhuleshwar Division, Mumbai on ''as is where is'' basis to Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust, P.T.R.No.E/25619/Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs only) on the following terms and conditions :-

i) The purchaser shall pay amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs only) by crossed cheque/demand draft to the Trust.

ii) The sale deed shall be executed within a period of six months form the date of this order.

iii) All expenses including stamp duty, registration charges, etc. shall be borne by the purchaser.

iv) The entire amount of sale proceeds shall be held as trust corpus and kept intact for ever in the form of investment in fixed deposits yielding monthly interest or otherwise in any Nationalized Bank and should not be withdrawn without prior permission of this Authority. Interest amount may be withdrawn.

v) The interest accrued on the fixed deposits shall be utilized only for the purpose and objects of the trust.

vi) This permission shall be subject to all the relevant laws and rules applicable to the transaction and the property as well.

Vii) The trustees are directed to file necessary change report after completion of the sale transaction."

7. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments of both sides, are briefly set out herein below.

8. Respondent No.3 before us is a Trust and we say this because the record indicates that it has been assigned a registration number. It has been assigned the number B140(Mumbai) by the office of the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai exercising powers under the then Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now the MPT A

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

AI

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