Point of Law: Service Matter1 - It extends to inviting offers from the members of the public and directing the trustees to sell or transfer the trust property to a person whose bid or quotation is the best, having regard to the interest, benefit and protection of the trust2- Sale made by Registered Sale Deed, cannot be up-set on the basis of such vague offer and wild allegations against the Respondents. A sale to the existing lessee at a price higher than approved by Valuer’s valuation is prima facie not only valid and acceptable, but the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of Respondent No.2 and now further sales made to over 300 persons cannot be set aside on such meritless litigation for motivated purposes at the instance of a group of lawyers and that too without impleading all of them nor there is any valid ground to do so. It is better that the lawyers limit their activities to their profession rather than land dealings in this manner.

JUDGMENT :

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. Mr.Vijay Kantilal Patel, a practicing lawyer of Surat along with a group of his lawyers friends, seems to be indulging in land dealings also, besides their pious and noble profession of Advocacy and the litigation history of this case shows that where the Respondent – Jangleshwar Mahadev Trust, a Public Trust having obtained the permission from the Charity Commissioner sold the land in question of 5 Acres and 37 Gunthas situated at Revenue Survey No.12 in Village Kamrej, District – Surat to the Respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bhayani, who was already a lessee of the said land in question and the land in question was sold to him for a sum of Rs.11,21,000/- on 17.2.2001 by a Registered Sale Deed, is being challenged by Petitioner – Mr.Vijay Kantilal Patel. The said proceedings all through at all steps have been challenged merely on the alleged claim that he was ready to offer 25% more of the price of the land in question of Rs.11,21,000/- and, therefore, neither the Charity Commissioner was justified in granting the sale permission nor the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were justified in rejecting his case and hence, he has continued with this Letters Patent Appeal in the present case.

2. During the course of arguments, it has come before us by way of series of Affidavits filed by Respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bhayani with site photographs that the said land stood now sold to over more than 300 persons in different plots and they have raised their construction of Residential Houses etc. on the said land but, still, the Appellant wants it to be restored back to him on the ruse that he was ready to offer 25% more and, therefore, why it has been allowed to be sold at the given price to the Respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bhayani.

3. We are a bit surprised at the persistence of the Petitioner Advocate (well he has not disclosed this status in pleadings, but it was revealed in the course of arguments), who having failed at all levels, is fighting for this land from 1999 till 2021 for last 21 years. The lack of bona fides and prevalence of greed in the background is more than apparent.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner with the following reasons and observations which would summarize the entire case of the Petitioner and Respondents also.

“7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that at the time when the application seeking permission of the competent authority to sell the land in question was made by the sole trustee – (Late) Smt. Kantaben Zaverilal Joshi, the said land had already been given on a five year lease to respondent no.2 for cutting the grass, at an annual rent of Rs.900/-, in order to protect the land from encroachment. The respondent no.2 was possessing the said land as a tenant under a lease agreement entered into between the sole trustee and respondent no.2. It is a fact situation that the said lease document was executed on a stamp paper of inadequate value and that it was also not registered. On the basis of such a document, respondent no.2 could never have got any right established in any Court of law since the said document would have been inadmissible in evidence. At the best, respondent no.2 could have got the right of a licensee established but, in that case also, the Trust could have got back possession of the said land at the end of five years. However, the fact remains that at the relevant time, the disputed land was in the possession of respondent no.2 in the capacity of a tenant.

8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.2 had expressed his willingness to purchase the land in question at the price of Rs.11,21,000/- as against the Government approved Valuer's price valuation of Rs.10,80,000/-. The petitioner had not given or specified