Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 585
IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.K. Lahoti and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.
Silas Rajesh Lal and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.15053 of 2008 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 9.11.2012.
Akash Choudhary for petitioners;
Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate for State;
V.K. Shukla for respondent No.4;
Kishore Shrivastava with Kunal Thakre for respondents No.5 to 9, 14, 15 and 24 to 29
Rohit Arya with P.S. Yadav for respondent No.13;
Vipin Yadav for intervenor.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 -- S.50 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.92 -- disputes regarding properties of ‘Trust’ -- can be put before Charity Commissioner -- can also be raised in civil suit -- writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the same.
Held : Aforesaid provisions specifically provides that an aggrieved person can always approach to the Charity Commissioner who is empowered to take action after such enquiry as he thinks necessary and to issue necessary directions. Any aggrieved person can also file a civil suit as provided in section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In this case, there are serious disputed questions in respect of the properties whether these are properties of the trust or of society and whether aforesaid properties were sold for the purpose of trust or not, all the disputed questions cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. As has already been held in Writ Petition No.14250/2006 Wilson Brown and another v. Rev. Vinay Peter and others, on 2.1.2005 that the aggrieved party can avail remedy as provided in the order, subsequent petition for the same purpose cannot be entertained. The petitioners herein may approach to the Charity Commissioner as directed earlier in Writ Petition No.14250/2005. Apart from this, the purchasers are also not party in this petition, without whom no effective order can be passed.
In view of aforesaid, this petition for the same/similar relief is not entertained and is dismissed in view of the specific order in Writ Petition No.14250/2005, with no order as to costs. Writ Petition No.14250 of 2005 relied on.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && cacbZ yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e] 1950 && /kkjk 50 && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 92 && U;kl dh laifRr;ksa ds laca/k esa fookn && iwrZ vk;qDr ds le{k j[ks tk ldrs gSa && flfoy okn esa Hkh mBk, tk ldrs gSa && blds fy, fjV vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr mica/k fofufnZ”V :i ls micaf/kr djrs gSa fd O;fFkr O;fDr lnSo iwrZ rd igq¡p ldrk gS tks ,slh tk¡p ds i’pkr~ ;Fkk og vko’;d le>s dkjZokbZ djus rFkk vko’;d funs’k tkjh djus ds fy, l’kDr gSA bl ekeys esa] laifRr;ksa ds laca/k esa xaHkhj fookfnr iz’u gS fd D;k ;s laifRr;k¡ U;kl dh gSa ;k lkslkbVh dh rFkk D;k iwoksZDr laifRr;ksa dk fodz; U;kl ds iz;kstu ds fy, fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] lHkh fookfnr iz’uksa dh tk¡p fjV vf/kdkfjrk esa ugha dh tk ldrhA ;Fkk fjV ;kfpdk dz-14250 lu~ 2005 foYlu czkmu rFkk vU; fo- jso- fou; ihVj rFkk vU; esa 2-1-2006 dks igys&gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd O;fFkr i{kdkj vkns’k esa ;Fkk micaf/kr mipkj izkIr dj ldrk gS] mlh iz;kstu ds fy, i’pkr~orhZ ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA blesa ;kphx.k fjV ;kfpdk dz-14250 lu~ 2005 esa iwoZ funsf’kr iwrZ vk;qDr rd igq¡p ldrs gSaA blds vfrfjDr] bl ;kfpdk esa dzsrk Hkh i{kdkj ugha gSa] ftuds fcuk dksbZ izHkkoh vkns’k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
iwoksZDr dk n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,] mlh@leku mipkj ds fy, ;g ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh rFkk fjV ;kfpdk dz-14250 lu~ 2005 esa fofufnZ”V vkns’k dks ns[krs gq, [kpsZ ds fo”k;d fcuk fdlh vkns’k ds [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA fjV ;kfpdk dz-14250 lu~ 2005 voyafcrA
Lahoti, J. -- 1. The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs :
“(1) That the defaulter trustees be seriously dealt with and the entire trust properties called in question may kindly be reverted back on the name of the Public Trust Methodist Church in India by cancelling and declaring all the sale-deeds and the entire transactions as contained in the body of writ petition as null and void ab initio because, no prior consent has been obtained by the defaulter trustees from respondent No.4 before parting with the trust properties in question, moreover, they have been misappropriated and have committed criminal breach of trust properties for which the criminal liability be fastened against the respondents No.5 to 9 and the Superintendent of Police be ordered to take action in the matter by registering criminal cases against the defaulter trustees r/w respondents No.5 to 9 and serious action is called for from this Hon’ble Court.
(2) That, looking to the serious allegation levelled in the entire matter supra, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order high level probe in the matter by directing the CBI to investigate the matter and the defaulter trustees along with respondents No.5 to 9 be punished in accordance with law.
(3) That, the respondents No.5 to 9 be restrained from dispossessing the full members of the Trust along with the petitioners from the properties of the present Public Trust i.e. their residential houses situated at Pili Kothi 1017 Napier Town Chowk, Jabalpur and English Methodist Church Compund Nagrath Napier Town Jabalpur in which they are residing till date in the ends of justice.
(4) That, any other relief deemed fit under the present circumstances be also granted to the petitioners and this petition be allowed with cost.”
2. The dispute between the parties, in short, can be stated thus :
(i) The petitioners are full members of Methodist Church in India. It is a Public Trust. They have challenged the action of respondents No.5 to 9 who happen to be the office-bearers of a Public Trust namely Methodist Church in India and have transferred the properties of trust allegedly in violation of the provisions as contained in Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is alleged that the act of the respondents No.5 to 9 has jeopardised and defeated the aims and objects of the trust. They have alienated the properties of the trust without seeking permission of respondent No.4. As the properties of the trust are still being alienated, this petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondents are still selling the properties to the colonisers, developers and builders, which are against the welfare of full members of the trust. It is alleged that the respondents No.5 to 9 have failed to perform the religious, pious and charitable act of the trust and the properties are not utilised for the purposes of the trust. The entire sale of the properties as shown in the document Annexure P-3 is in violation of the provisions of law namely Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
(ii) That, the properties of the trust could be utilised only for the benefit of the full members of the trust, but it has been sold by respondents No.5 to 9 which is an illegal act of the respondents No.5 to 9.
(iii) That, the properties which are sold by respondents No.5 to 9 deserve to be reverted back to the Public Trust and the possession of the properties, as are described in Annexure P-3, may be restored to the trust by cancelling the documents and declaring all the transactions as illegal. It is also prayed that the sale-deeds executed by the respondents No.5 to 9 be declared as null and void because no prior consent was obtained by the trustees from the respondent No.4 before sale of the trust properties. That the consideration received by the respondents No.5 to 9 have been misappropriated thereby they have committed breach of the trust. Earlier petitioner No.1 had
