Procedural compliance in trust registration is mandatory; failure to notify interested parties invalidates the registration process.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

1. This Petition takes exception to order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner (for short ‘JCC’) in Revision Petition No. 99/2021 whereby the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner (for short ‘ACC’) dated 21.12.2012 granting certificate of registration of the trust in respect of immovable property i.e. inam property Gut No. 1 Changatpuri, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar admeasuring 5A 2R (subject property).

2. The facts which led to the filing of this Petition can be narrated, in brief, as under:

The Petitioner is the son of Inamdar in respect of subject property. Initially, the subject property stood in the name of Inamdar. The said inam was created for the purpose of maintenance of the Shri Vithal Rukhmini Mandir Tirth Khamb, Paithan. On abolition of inams, at later point of time revenue record was changed. The said land was shown in the name of the Temple and in the other rights column name of Inamdar came to be included. Respondent had filed application under Section 19 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of registration of a temple situated at village Changatpuri as a public trust in the name of Shri Vithal Rukhmini Mandir Tirth Khamb, Changatpuri. In the said application the subject property was shown to be the property of the trust. Pursuant to the said application, ACC by order dated 21.12.2012 granted registration as sought. After getting knowledge of this order, Petitioner filed Revision Application before the JCC under Section 70-A of the Act taking exception to the same. This application was filed on 21.09.2021.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner before the JCC that he is the inamdar, owner and possessor of the said inam land and without hearing him or his predecessor, the impugned order came to be passed by the ACC. It is stated in the application that this order was not within his knowledge and as such, immediately after getting knowledge thereof, he filed application for obtaining certified copy and the revision was preferred.

4. This application was contested by the Respondent. The learned JCC by passing impugned order dated 15.07.2024 has dismissed the revision on two counts i.e., the revision being not filed within a reasonable period and that the issue of title of the property cannot be gone into in this proceedings.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is ample documentary evidence on record to indicate that subject property is inam land and revenue record clearly shows that initially the property stood in the name of Inamdar and later on it was shown in the name of Temple and name of the Inamdar was recorded in the other rights column. He drew attention of the Court to the mutation entries and revenue record which is part of the paper book of this Petition. It is his submission that the application filed by the Respondent for the registration of the trust is in respect of temple which is constructed in the year 2002 and hence, question of the subject land being inam for maintenance of said temple does not arise. It is argued that existence of some different temple than the one in respect of which registration of the trust is sought can be seen from revenue record. He drew attention of the Court to the information received from the Grampanchayat with regard to registration of any temple and it is informed to Petitioner that no such temple is registered in the name of Shri Vithal Rukhmini Mandir Tirth Khamb at Changatpuri. He also drew attention of the Court to writing allegedly given by the