Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah, SHARAD D.DAVE
RAGHAVJIBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
AMROLI ANJUMAN FUND THR TRUSTEE - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal 62 of 2006
Decided On : 01/17/2006
Interim relief - Refusal to grant - Sale of Trust land to purchaser Trust - Sustainability.
Head Note :
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Bom. Act 29 of 1950) - Sections 36 and 55 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 10 - Interim relief - Refusal to grant -Sale of Trust land to purchaser Trust - Sustainability - The vendor Trust declared the offer of appellant to purchase Trust property for one crore and decided to sell the property to Respondent 2 purchaser Trust for Rs. 42 Lakhs on ground of assurance by Respondent No. 2 to use trust property for charitable purposes like providing educational and medical facilities - The Additional Commissioner accorded the sanction for alleged sale - In appeal against sanction for sale by Additional Commissioner the appellant filed application for interim relief of stay which Gujarat Revenue Tribunal disallowed for just and proper reasons when vendor Trust has decided to sell the property to Respondent No. 2 it is not open to Charity Commissioner to compel the vendor Trust to sell the property to any other person - The jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner is limited to merely see that the sale is not adverse to the interest of the Trust - That apart the credentials of purchaser Trust of being engaged in large number of charitable activities have not been challenged and that purchaser Trust to spend more than Rs. 75 lakhs exclusively of purchase price already paid for the land - Contention that such consideration are required to be made by Court under the provisions of Act has no force and cannot be accepted because it is premature at the stage of grant of sanction since the vendor Trust has already obtained Rs. 42 lakhs and if all the objects of achievements fail vendor Trust can make application under Section 55 of the Act - In the case vendor Trust have already executed the registered sale-deed in favour of purchaser Trust having taken full money of consideration and order of sanction of Jt. Charity Commissioner have been implemented the question of interim order for stay does not servive.
Held :
The gravamen of the challenge made by the appellants against the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner for the purpose of interim relief has been that there is substantial difference between the offer made by the appellants and the purchase price paid by the purchaser-Trust. The difference being is as much as Rs. 58 lacs, the Tribunal ought to have stayed further implementation of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner and ought to have restrained the purchaser-Trust from putting up any construction on the land in question.
[Para 10]
Under Section 36, it is not open to the Charity Commissioner to compel the vendor-Trust to sell the property of the trust to any person other than the person to whom the Trust is inclined to sell the property. All that the Charity Commissioner is required to consider, whether the proposed sale to a party to whom the Trustees of the vendor-Trust intend to sell is adverse to the interest of the Trust. If the Charity Commissioner considers such sale to be adverse to the interest of the Trust, the Charity Commissioner can certainly decline to grant sanction. [Para 11]
In the facts of the present case, the appellants have not challenged the credentials of the purchaser-Trust nor has it challenged the case of the purchaser-Trust that it has been engaging in large number of charitable activities in various parts of the State and that the purchaser-Trust had also rendered yeoman services for providing relief to the victims of the earthquake in January, 2001. In the facts of the present case, therefore, there is nothing to doubt the credentials of the purchaser-Trust or the genuineness of the transaction of the property in question by way of sale from the vendor-Trust to the purchaser-Trust, nor is there anything to doubt the assurance given by the purchaser Trust to spend more than Rs. 75 lakhs exclusive of the purchase price already paid for the land (but inclusive of Rs. 25 lakhs spent so far). [Para 14]
When the trustees of the vendor-Trust, Charity Commissioner, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as well as this Court are satisfied that the property is going to be put to use for charitable purposes only, it cannot be said that the offer made by the appellants must be taken as the market value of the land. Assuming that the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner for the sale in question would amount to change of object of the Trust and assuming that the objects of the vendor-Trust were only religious objects (as urged on behalf of the appellants), considering that all religions consider that "service to humanity is service of God" and that no person from the Parsi community has objected to the sale of the property to the purchaser trust for Rs. 42,11,111/-, there would not be any illegality or impropriety in permitting the sale of the land to the purchaser Trust which is going to use the property for charitable purposes and for which the purchaser-Trust is going to spend another at least Rs. 75 lakhs over and above the amount of Rs. 42 lakhs already paid for purchasing the land in question. We may also make it clear that while the Court will not permit a trust to convert its objects from charitable activities to religious activities, the Court need not be so reluctant while considering the request of the trustees to convert its objects from religious activities to charitable activities. [Para 16]
In the facts of the present case, the vendor-Trust has already executed the registered sale-deed in favour of the purchaser-Trust in the first week of July, 2005 and the purchaser-Trust has already paid the full consideration of Rs. 42,11,111/- to the vendor-Trust. The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner has therefore, already been implemented and acted upon. There is, therefore, no question of granting any interim stay against the operation or implementation of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The respondent has already invested Rs. 25 lakhs for putting up the compound wall and for taking other preliminary steps for putting the land in question to use and the purchaser-Trust, which is admittedly a Public Charitable Trust, proposes to spend another Rs. 50 lakhs for putting the property to use [Para 20]
Law Laid Down :
It is not open to the Charity Commissioner to compel the vendor Trust to sell the property of the Trust to any person other than the person to whom the Trust is inclined to sell.
Case Law Analysis :
Arunodaya Prefab vs. M.D. Kambli, 1979 MLJ 104 [Para 11].-Relied on
Cases Referred :
Ratilal Panchand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 (394);; Shah Chhotalal Lallubhai vs. Charity Commissioner, AIR 1965 SC 1611;; Ram Sarup vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 Delhi 318;; Thakorebhai Gangaram vs. Ramanlal Maganlal Reshamwala, 1993 (1) GLH 473;; Hasam Ibrahim Abdul Latiff Supediwala vs. Bhaichan Pranlal Dhoneja & Ors.,1999 (1) GLH 854.
Conclusion :
The order of Jt. Charity Commissioner has already been implemented and acted upon, therefore, there is no question of granting any interim stay against operation or implementation of the order.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondents
Appeal Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13. 12. 2005 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition of the appellants herein challenging the interlocutory order dated 7. 9. 2005 passed by the Gujarat revenue Tribunal in Appeal (AS) No. 3 of 2005 refusing to grant interim relief prayed for by the appellants herein.
( 2 ) AMROLI Anjuman Fund - a public religious charitable trust " respondent No. 1 herein made an application before the Joint Commissioner, Surat seeking permission under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) to sell the land admeasuring 8093 sq. mtrs. , situated at village chhaprabhata in Choryasi Taluka of Surat district. Respondent No. 1 " Trust (hereinafter referred as "the vendor trust") stated that the land was not in use for many years, because, the land was for running Agiari and was mainly Dokhma land i. e. , it was to be used for the last rituals for the members of the Parsi community, but the number of Parsi families was dwindling and only three parsi families remained in the village. With good road connectivity with Surat and faster means of transportation and communication, if at all when any member of the above three families of Parsi community residing in the village was required to take a dead body, the same could be easily taken to the Dokhma at Surat. It was also stated that on account of non-use of the property, encroachments were taking place and it was in the interest of the Trust to sell the land. The vendor- trust also indicated that they had agreed to sell the land for the price of Rs. 42,11,111/- to respondent No. 2 " bochasanvasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha " (hereinafter referred to as "the Purchaser- Trust") a registered Public Charitable Trust, which was carrying on a large number of charitable and religious activities.
( 3 ) THE Joint Charity Commissioner, Surat got the notice dated 7. 4. 2004 published in a widely circulated Gujarati newspaper published from Surat for inviting offers. The advertisement also mentioned that the purchaser Trust (i. e. , respondent No. 2 herein) wanted to purchase the land for charitable activities like health and education. The public notice also invited the objections, if any, against the sale proposed to be made by the vendor " trust to the purchaser Trust. It was also indicated in the public notice that the question whether the land in question could be sold to any private party would also be considered at the hearing.
( 4 ) IN response to the above public notice, the appellant herein, claiming to be a body of individuals, offered to purchase the property for Rs. 1 crore. At the hearing before the Joint Charity Commissioner, the vendor"trust submitted that the vendor"trust did not desire to consider the offer of Rs. 1 crore made by the appellant herein, because, the appellants herein did not desire to purchase the land for any public charitable purposes, but only for commercial activities and, therefore, the trustees of the vendor"trust were not willing to sell the property in question to the appellants herein. The trustees of the vendor"trust stated that they wanted to accept the offer of Rs. 42,11,111/- made by respondent no. 2 herein (respondent No. 3 before the learned Charity commissioner) on the ground that the purchaser"trust is a charitable trust running several religious and charitable institutions like educational institutions and hospitals. Before the Joint Charity Commissioner, affidavits are also stated to have been filed by the members of the parsi community supporting the stand of the vendor"trust for selling the property to the purchaser Trust (respondent No. 2 herein ). Joint Charity Commissioner, by his order dated 30. 06. 2005, permitted the Vendor" Trust to sell the property to respondent No. 2 herein (the purchaser"trust) for an amount of Rs. 42,11,111/ -. On the basis of the said permission, the trustees of t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
