Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Vishnukant Khemka son of Late Satya Narayan Khemka - Petitioner
Versus
Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Patna now Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Board, Ranchi through its Secretary - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2936 of 2006
Decided On : 16-02-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Miss Ragini Kumari, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Badal Vishal, Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Adv.
Headnote:
Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950 - Trust Property Sale - Section 44 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950, particularly Section 44, which governs the transfer of property of a religious trust. The court highlighted the definition of 'religious trust' under Section 2(l) and the requirement for permission from the Board under Section 44 for the sale of trust property. The court also emphasized the jurisdiction of the Additional Judicial Commissioner and the interpretation of the Act's provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of permission to sell trust property and sought a writ of mandamus to execute the sale deed. The trust was constituted for charitable purposes, and the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale during the pendency of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order and that the trust property was governed by the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950. The court also upheld the rejection of permission to sell the property, citing the high market value and the requirement for permission under the Act.
Issues: The jurisdiction of the Additional Judicial Commissioner and the applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950 were key issues. The court also considered the validity of the agreement for sale and the necessity for permission to sell the trust property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Additional Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction and that the trust property fell under the Act's provisions. The court also emphasized the need for permission under Section 44 of the Act and upheld the rejection of permission to sell the property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner given the liberty to approach the civil court for a refund of the money paid for the agreement of sale.
1. Heard Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Miss Ragini Kumari, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
3. Heard Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2,3,5 and 6.
4. Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.
5. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order/judgment dated 04.03.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner No. XVI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 66/1995, whereby the prayer to grant permission to the applicants/respondent nos. 2 to 8 to sell the trust property has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in connection with the property involved in this case in favour of the petitioner.
6. Counsel for the writ petitioner submits as under:-
a. By referring to Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is the petition filed before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and was numbered as Misc. Case No. 66/1995, it is submitted that six persons namely Basudeo Prasad Budhia (respondent no. 2 herein), Sachchidanand Budhia (respondent no. 3 herein), Gyan Prakash Budhia (respondent no. 4 herein), Rajendra Kumar Budhia (respondent no. 5 herein), Vijay Kumar Budhia (respondent no. 6 herein), Madan Lal Agarwala (respondent no. 6 herein who on account of his death has been deleted vide order dated 28.07.2009), Jadia Devi Budhia Trust (respondent no. 8 herein) filed a petition before the Judicial Commissioner in view of clause-15 of the registered trust deed dated 14.03.1957 seeking permission to sell the trust property as mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint.
b. Jadia Devi Budhia Trust was constituted for charitable purposes and the purpose of the trust has been mentioned in clause-11 of the trust deed which includes services to the society in the field of education, health, social service with particular reference to the women and child.
c. During the pendency of the proceedings being Misc. Case No. 66/1995, a petition for intervention was filed by the writ petitioner who was added as opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 11.12.2002.
d. Earlier another petition was filed to implead Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Patna as opposite party no. 1 in Misc. Case No. 66/1995 which was allowed vide order dated 15.04.1995.
e. He further submits that another person namely Om Prakash Choudhary was also added as opposite party no. 3 in Misc. Case No. 66/1995 vide order dated 29.01.2003.
f. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was added as a party respondent in the case due to the reason that during pendency of the Misc. Case No. 66/1995, an agreement dated 16.10.1996 for sale of the property which was involved in Misc. Case No. 66/1995 was entered into between the trust namely Jadia Devi Budhia Trust and the writ petitioner and the said agreement of sale was registered at a total consideration amount of Rs. 50,01,101/-. It is submitted that the petitioner also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as part of the consideration for the property. The application for impleading the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 66/1995 has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure-2.
g. He submits that as per the provisions of the said trust, there is restriction imposed so far as the sale or mortgage of the property is concerned. As per clause-15 of the trust deed, the procedure which has been prescribed for the sale of the trust property contemplates that at first, it has to be determined as to whether the property is required to be sold for the purposes of the trust and then a decision has to be taken by their Board consisting of the trustees and thereafter the petition for permission is required to be filed before the Judicial Commissioner and upon getting such permission only, the property can be sol
