The paramount consideration in permitting the alienation of trust property is the interest, benefit, and protection of the Trust, and the transparent utilization of the sale proceeds for the betterment of the Trust.

JUDGEMENT :

A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent a challenge is raised to the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 thereby dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur dated 27.01.2012 in proceedings under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950). By that order the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to reject the application filed by the respondent no.2-Trust seeking permission to alienate its immovable property.

2. The facts relevant for deciding the Letters Patent Appeal are that the respondent no.2-Public Trust is duly registered under the provisions of the Act of 1950. As per Schedule-I of the Act of 1950, it owns field Survey No.124 admeasuring about 7 H 70 R at Mouza - Barbadi Taluka and District Wardha. Since the members of the Trust were of the view that the said land should be utitlized towards proper upkeepment of the Trust, a resolution was passed by a majority of eleven members out of twelve for selling the said land. On 15.02.2008 a public advertisement was published inviting bids for purchasing the said land. Pursuant to that advertisement the Trust received three bids. Since the offers received were not to the expectation of the trustees, it was resolved to issue another advertisement. Fresh advertisements were issued on 08.03.2008 and 10.03.2008. The appellant herein had offered an amount Rs.6,02,500/- per acre which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.6,10,000/- per acre. Since the amount offered by the appellant was the highest, a resolution was passed accepting that offer and resolving to seek permission of the Joint Charity Commissioner for selling the said land.

3. An application was accordingly moved under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 on 17.07.2008. In that application it was stated that the said land was lying fallow and the Trust was not receiving any income from it. Construction of the temple of the Trust was required to be undertaken since it was noticed that proper arrangements of devotees visiting the temple could not be made. With a view to enhance the income of the Trust and to utilize that income for proper maintenance of the temple and provide facilities to the devotees, it was resolved to seek permission of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. In the proceedings before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the President of the Trust examined himself and filed his affidavit. The respondent no.3 herein raised an objection to the aforesaid application by filing such objection on 08.07.2009. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner considered the application and on 15.02.2011 granted permission to sell the said land to the appellant. This order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was challenged by the Objector by preferring Writ Petition being No.1801 of 2011. The learned Single Judge while considering the said writ petition noted that the price of the land approximately was Rs.16,79,600/- per acre in January 2010. It was found that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had failed to consider this aspect and hence by the judgment dated 08.07.2011 the learned Single Judge was pleased to remand the proceedings for a fresh consideration to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.

4. After remand, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner heard the parties and recorded a finding that the price of the land as offered by the appellant was the market price when the advertisement was issued in the year 2008. It was however found that the Trust had failed to establish its necessity of alienating the land bearing Survey No.124. Another finding recorded was that the price offered by the respondent no.3 and other bidders except the appellant was not sufficient for granting permission to sell the land. On that count, the application moved by the Trust cam