A. D. DESAI, T. U. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by our learned brother S. H. Sheth J. in Spl. Civil Application No. 1438 of 1970 holding that the respondent No. 2 who is Dy. Charity Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to make an inquiry under sec. 22a of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (Bombay Act No. XXIX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to investigate into the question whether the disputed land which is S. No. 568 of Wadaj is of the ownership of the Government.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that there is a public trust in the city of Ahmedabad named Shri Gaushala Hanumanji Shiv Ganpati Temple. This trust was registered pursuant to an application made in the year 1952 under the provisions of the Act and amongst the properties which were said to be belonging to that trust the disputed property which bears S. No. 568 of Wadaj was also include in the register as a result of the inquiry which was found then made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner under sec. 19 of the Act. This disputed property is registered as a trust property at entry N3. 1139 in the Public Trust Register. It is found that on 17th October 1968 the present appellant filed an application under sec. 22a of the Act for cancelling the said entry on the ground that S. No. 568 of Wadaj is a grazing land and that therefore it belongs to the Government and has been wrongly catered into trust register as a trust property. It was further alleged that when the inquiry proceedings under sec. 19 of the Act were undertaken no notice was given to the Government about the said inquiry.

( 3 ) DURING the course of those proceedings the present respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary contention that the Deputy Charity Commissioner while acting under sec 22a of the Act had no jurisdiction to consider the question whether the disputed property was of the ownership of the Government and this is more so in view of the fact that the inquiry under sec. 19 of the Act was already over many years ago and the findings recorded in that inquiry have become final. It appears that the Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected this preliminary contention with the result that the first respondent approached this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction by preferring a Special Civil Application No. 1438/70. This Special Civil Application was heard and disposed of by our learned brother S. H. Sheth J. who has taken the view that the Deputy Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to inquire into the disputed question in an inquiry contemplated by sec 22a of the Act. (Skukla Ramanujacharya v M. N. Shah XIII G L R 493) Being aggrieved by this decision the present appellant who is the Deputy Collector of Ahmedabad has preferred this Appeal.

( 4 ) THE question which is involved in this appeal is one of the correct interpretation which call be put to sec. 22a of the Act as regards its real scope and ambit. This sec. 22a is in the following terms: 22 If at any lime after the entries are made in the register under see. 21 or 22 it appears to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner that any particular relating to any public trust which was not the subject matter of the inquiry under sec 19 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 22 as the case may be has remained to be enquired into the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner as the case may be may make further inquiry in the prescribed manner record his findings and make entries in the register in accordance with the decision arrived at or if appeals or applications are made as provided by this Act in accordance with the decision of the competent authority provided by this Act. The provisions of secs 19 20 21 and 22 shall so far as may be apply to the inquiry the recording of findings and the making of entries in the register under this section. The section thus obviously contemplates a fresh inquiry in cases where any particular relating to any public trust which was not subject matter of an inquiry under sec. 19 ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document