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

1998 Supreme(Guj) 579

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.BALIA
HASAM IBRAHIM ABDUL LATIF SUPEDIWALA - Appellant
Versus
BHAICHAND PRANLAL DHONEJA - Respondent
S.C.A. 869 of 1996
Decided On : 10/16/1998

Advocates Appeared: B.G.JANI, P.M.RAVAL, SURESH M.SHAH

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Application for modification in the condition - Land granted for the purpose of Hospital - Existing Hospital demolished - Trust has no requisite funds to construct the building - Competent authority not enquire the matter order set aside.

       The grant was subject to condition and it also held that it could not have been used for any other purpose except with the permission of the competent authorities in accordance with law. The Collector was really required to consider this later question whether in the case before it, the applicants should be granted permission to use the land for other purposes than for the purpose of hospital, keeping in view of the fact that existing hospital has been demolished, new hospital has to be constructed and the trust to whom land has been granted is not endowed with requisite fund to construct the building over it. The Collector has stopped short of interpreting the document and came to the conclusion that the purpose for which land has been alowed. However, he has not entered the field to enquire whether it was a case in which the condition is required to be modified for permiting the allottee or a transferee from him to use the land for the purposes other than hospital when the alienation by the trust is held by competent officer justified or in the charged circumstances Turst itself may be required to put the land for such use in furtherance of its objectives. The order as such therefore cannot be sustained.

       [Para 6 ]

       (b) Bombay Public Trust Act - Sec. 36 - Land granted subject to condition - Permission by Charity Commissioner with same condition - Transferor is not to oversee or supervise the object and purpose of the purchaser - Permission of Charity Commissioner subject to condition is erroneous.

       The application may be made by the person who has acquired right over the land and wants to use it for other than hospital purpose. A transferor is not to oversee or supervise the object and purpose of the purchaser. The purchaser acquires the land with open eyes that land is subject to such condition. He takes upon himself either to use the land for the same purpose or to secure necessary permission for alteration in condition as to use before using it. Therefore to the extent permission of Charity Commissioner has been held to be invalid on the ground that a condition as to particular use has been attached with the land, is erroneous.

       [Para 8 ]

       

R. BALIA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the petitions are relating to same subject-matter and integrally connected and therefore are decided together. There exists a Januhasan charitable Trust at Dhoraji of which respondent No. 4 is a trustee. The land in question admeasuring 26,788-8-2-0 sq. yds. was purchased by the trust at the rate of 0-04 annas per sq. yd. , from the erstwhile State of Gondal on 10-8-1940. The land is situated at village Dhoraji. At the back of grant along with the map of the site, a note was put up which reads as under : (Quotation in handwritten Gujarati)

( 2 ) A charitable hospital was constructed on part of the land. Some shops were also constructed for yielding income. However, major portion of the land was lying vacant. In June 1981, some communal riots took place in village dhoraji in which the building of the hospital was severely damaged and was rendered incapable of being used. An application was moved to the Joint Charity commissioner on 15-11-1983 by the Managing Trustee of the said trust seeking permission to sell 26. 6. 6 sq. yds. of open land. It was stated in the application that due to riots on 13-6-1981, the hospital building consisting of about ten rooms including furniture, medical appliances had been destroyed. These properties have been ordered to be written off by the Charity Commissioner on the report being made in that behalf. It was pointed out that to construct a new building an amount of Rs. 20. 00 lakhs is estimated to be required, the trust having limited funds to meet these requirements needs this property to be sold. It was also pointed out that trust after selling the land may construct a new hospital elsewhere from the funds realised to be from the sale of the land in question. For the purpose of construction of new hospital it was pointed out that another plot of about 2,400 sq. yds. , has been donated to the trust, at a different site near dhoraji. Certain objections were filed to this application by respondent No. 5 and two others for rejecting the permission. The Charity Commissioner after considering the objections fixed the minimum price at which offer for sale be invited at rs. 125/- per square yard. Thereafter, on 16-3-1984 a public notice for sale of the plot in question was issued which appeared in the daily newspaper Fool Chhaab of Rajkot. In response to that advertisement, the present petitioner offered highest price of Rs. 45. 00 lakhs. To the acceptance of this offer, two objections were raised, one by Patel Kadwa Arjan, who is respondent No. 5 in Special Civil application No. 869 of 1986, and another by D. R. Bhalra. Ultimately, vide his order dated 30-5-1984, Joint Charity Commissioner granted permission to sell the land in question for a sum of Rs. 45. 00 lakhs in favour of present appellant. Aggrieved with the grant of said permission, three persons, namely, Bhaichand pranlal Dhoneja, Kishorekant Talekchand and Jayantilal Bachubhai Padalia, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Special Civil Application No. 869 of 1986, against the order of Joint Charity Commissioner, before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The grant of permission was challenged on the ground firstly that land in question has been allotted at a concessional price only for the purpose of constructing a hospital thereon and it cannot be put to any other use, except with the permission of the competent officer for change of user, the sale would result in breach of condition of allotment. Secondly that there has been collusion between the Managing Trustee and the purchaser who are near relatives for which support was drawn from the fact that lesser percentage of the offered price has been deposited as earnest money then the usual practice, because the Managing Trustee and the purchaser are near relatives and that while earlier contract which the trustees has made on 21-10-1983 before applying for permission of Charity Commissioner was for a sum of Rs. 60. 00 lakhs agains



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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