The court affirmed that extensions for executing Trust property sales must prioritize transparency and market value, rejecting outdated agreements to protect Trust interests.

JUDGMENT:

1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a registered Public Trust, seeks to impugn the Judgment and Order dated 2nd January 2025 passed by the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Division, in Application No. 2 of 2019. By the impugned order, the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to reject the application preferred by the petitioner-Trust, seeking extension of time to execute the sale deed pursuant to the permission earlier granted by order dated 6th February 2001 under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The said permission had been granted to the petitioner-Trust to effectuate a sale transaction in favour of respondent No.5.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:

The petitioner is a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the said Act and is the owner of land bearing CTS No.259A admeasuring 24,290 square meters situated at 'E' Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur. The petitioner-Trust had approached the Charity Commissioner with an application seeking permission to sell the said Trust property, inter alia, on the ground that the property was lying idle, yielding no income for the Trust, and was being subjected to encroachments and unauthorized development in the nature of a slum. Considering the pressing need to safeguard the interests of the Trust and to realise value for the property, the petitioner had also published a public notice inviting offers, which came to be published in the daily newspaper ‘Satyawadi’ on 24th March 1989.

3. Pursuant to the said public advertisement, the office of the Charity Commissioner received offers from as many as nine prospective purchasers. Upon scrutiny of the said offers, the offer submitted by respondent No.5 was found to be the highest, quoting a rate of Rs.1,086/- per square meter. Thereupon, the Charity Commissioner, after satisfying himself as to the prudence and fairness of the proposed transaction, was pleased to grant permission for sale by an order dated 6th February 2001. The said order permitted the petitioner-Trust to sell the subject property for a total consideration of Rs.2,63,97,300/-, and it was further directed that the said transaction shall be completed by executing a registered sale deed within a period of one year from the date of the said order, i.e., on or before 6th February 2002.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale deed could not be executed in favour of respondent No.5 within the stipulated period as directed in the order dated 6th February 2001, owing to various procedural and legal impediments, more particularly, the requirement to carry out due diligence and to investigate the title of the Trust over the subject property. It is submitted that considerable time was consumed in securing requisite approvals and clearances. In this regard, the Planning Authority vide communication dated 10th July 2007 granted approval for conversion of the said land for residential purposes. Subsequently, the Collector, Kolhapur, by his order dated 8th April 2010, was pleased to rectify the tenure of the property, classifying it as ‘Class C’ tenure land. The City Survey Officer thereafter recorded the said change by making appropriate entries in the revenue record on 8th March 2011, thereby converting the property from ‘B’ tenure to ‘C’ tenure land.

5. The petitioner has further brought on record that respondent No.5, despite the lapse of the statutory period for execution of the sale deed, proceeded to create third-party rights over a portion of the said Trust property, admeasuring approximately 5,278.81 square meters, in favour of Sant Nirankari Mandal Trust. It is submitted that subsequently, a Settlement Agreement came to be executed on 8th January 2019, wherein respondent No.3 (a private Trust) agreed, as a nominee of respondent No.5, to pay the consideratio