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

2012 Supreme(Guj) 392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P.B. MAJMUDAR, C.L. SONI, JJ.
PANKAJKUMAR DWARKADAS SHAH & ORS
Versus
PATEL DAHYABHAI PUNJABHAI & ORS
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2507 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13838 of 2009
Decided on : 13/08/2012

Advocates appeared:
MR. S.N. SHELAT with MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SR. COUNSEL with MR. SHITAL R. PATEL for the Appellants
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL with MR. V.M. PANCHOLI for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
MR. R.H. PUPARELIYA, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s): 4 - 6.
DELETED for Respondent(s): 7,
MS. SNEHA A. JOSHI for Respondent(s): 8,

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 36 and 50 - Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3, who claimed to be the President, the Secretary and the Vice President respectively of Shri Modasiya Kadva Patidar Boarding Trust. Shri Modasiya Kadva Patidar Boarding is stated to be a registered Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The Special Civil Application was filed joining the State of Gujarat, Collector, District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and the Charity Commissioner as also the Chief Officer of Modasa Nagar Palika as respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively as well as against the present appellants- Held that, the order of Charity Commissioner to recover possession from the petitioners without hearing and adjudication of their rights and Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions to State authorities to provide assistance to the respondents to recover possession from the petitioners and demolition of the building - petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the trustees was not the remedy available to the trustees for recovery of the possession of the Trust properties from the appellants and consequently, in the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge was not justified in exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the State authorities to provide assistance to respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 trustees to recover the possession of the Trust property and for demolition of the shops held by the appellants- Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

C.L. SONI, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.13838 of 2009.

2. The Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3, who claimed to be the President, the Secretary and the Vice President respectively of Shri Modasiya Kadva Patidar Boarding Trust. Shri Modasiya Kadva Patidar Boarding is stated to be a registered Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The Special Civil Application was filed joining the State of Gujarat, Collector, District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and the Charity Commissioner as also the Chief Officer of Modasa Nagar Palika as respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively as well as against the present appellants. The prayers made in para 8 of the Special Civil Application are reproduced as under:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit this petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities including respondent nos. 2 and 5 with the help of the respondent no. 3 to demolish the illegal construction made in Survey No. 491/2 at Modasa Nagarpalika and/or direct the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 to take vacant possession of the shops in question from the respondent nos. 6 to 17 and therefore, be pleased to permit the petitioners to demolish the said illegal constructions.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 5 to seal the premises i.e. the shops, which are in illegal possession of the respondent nos. 6 to 17 situated in Survey No. 491/2 at Modasa Nagarpalika.

(D) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to pass such other order and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The case put up in Special Civil Application, in short, is to the effect that the Trust is owner of the land bearing Survey No.491/2 at Modasa, admeasuring 3440 Sq. Mtrs. One Pravinbhai B. Patel claimed to be the Secretary of the Trust. On 7.1.1985, he made application for obtaining Raja-chitthi (permission for construction) for construction of 15 shops without informing the trustees or the Charity Commissioner. Without waiting for Raja-chitthi, he put up the construction of 15 shops on the land of the Trust and shops were given on rent to different person for commercial purpose, contrary to the object of the Trust. Two persons, namely Ramanbhai Motibhai Patel and Natubhai Jesingbhai Patel filed an application, bearing Application No.36/37/2007 before the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act with a prayer to grant approval for letting the shops on rent with retrospective effect. In the said application, the trustees filed their objections and after hearing all the parties, the Charity Commissioner passed order dated 11.6.2008, whereby the application of the above said two persons was rejected and the Charity Commissioner was further pleased to pass an order directing the trustees of the Trust to take possession of the shops within 60 days after following the legal procedure. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the said order. At that stage, respondent No.1-President of the Trust issued notice dated 14.6.2008 to the shop holders-appellants, asking them to give possession of the land bearing Survey No.491/2 within a period of 7 days. The shop holders, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit Nos.65 of 2008 to 77 of 2008 and prayed for interim injunction. The said applications were dismissed, against which Special Civil Application No.4545 of 2009 and Special Civil Application Nos.5103 of 2009 to 5113 of 2009 were preferred which came to be rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court. Against the above-said order rejecting the






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top