MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
S.C. Sharma, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Khasgi (devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 92 of 2014, 135 of 2014; Writ Petition No. 11234 of 2020
Decided On : 05-10-2020
JUDGMENT
S.C. Sharma, J. - Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, these cases were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Appeal No.92/2014 are narrated hereunder.
The appellant before this Court has filed this present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.11618/2012 [The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Another v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]. The writ petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge against the order (note-sheet) passed by the Collector, Indore, by which, the Collector, Indore has directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of State of Madhya Pradesh in all properties of the Trust to ensure that the properties of the Trust are not sold to other persons.
2. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioners / Trust therein is a religious and charitable trust constituted on 27.06.1962. It was further stated in writ petition that the Trust and its activities were initiated by the erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State from the year 1761 - 1948, and thereafter, on account of merger, the Holkar State merged into Madhya Bharat.
3. The petitioners / Trust therein came up before the learned Single Judge with a case that on account of covenant executed by the parties, the private property, as per the schedule appended to the covenant, became the exclusive properties of the Maharaja, the other properties became the exclusive properties of Madhya Bharat (State of Madhya Pradesh) and a third species of property, which was not the State's property or the personal property of the Rulers of Holkar State, were the Trust's properties and in those backdrop, a Trust was constituted on 27.06.1962.
4. It has been further contended that in order to provide various checks and balances to ensure the public character of the Trust, the trust deed provided various safeguards including appointment of six trustees out of which three were government / public nominees. It has been contended that various recitals of the trustees also records that in the budget of Holkar State for the year 1947 - 48, a provision was made for Rs.2,91,952/- for maintenance of Khasgi Charities and the State Government has also issued a gazette notification on 27.07.1962 regarding the setting up of the Khasgi Trust and handing over the Khasgi properties to the Trust.
5. It was further contended by the petitioners / Trust in the writ petition that the covenant, which Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar had entered into with Government of India and other Rulers of the princely State of Central India to form the United State of Madhya Pradesh, did not deal specifically with the Khasgi properties and there was only a general provision contained in Article VII (2)(c) for dealing with the properties like the Khasgi properties and the same reads as under:-
"Subject to any directions or instructions that may form time to time be given by the Government of India in this behalf, the authority -
(a) xxxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxxx
(c) to control the administration of the fund in Gwalior known as the Gangajali Fund and / or any other existing fund of a similar character to any other Covenanting State."
6. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge have further stated that for Gangajali Fund of Gwalior State an act called Gangajali Fund Trust Act, 1954 (Madhya Bharat Act No.11 of 1954) was enacted by the Madhya Bharat Legislature and was repealed later, however, for the Khasgi Charties and religious endowment in the Holkar State, a tripartite instrument was entered into between Government of India, Government of Madhya Pradesh and Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar on 07.05.1949. The Trust has categorically stated in the writ petition that petitionerss / Trust do not have a copy of said instrument.
7. It has been further stated that as per the trust deed of Khasgi (Devi Ahilya
Draupadi Devi & Others v/s Union of India & Others
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sarat Chandra Rath & Ors.
Gowrishankar vs. Joshi Amba Shankar 54 Family Trust
Hari Vishnu Kamath v/s Syed Ahmad Ishaque
Indian Bank vs. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr.
Jai Narain Parasrampuria vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf
Janardha Reddy & Others v/s The State of Hyderabad & Others, (1951) AIR(SC) 217
K.B.Mfg.Co. vs. Sales Tax Commissioner
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust v/s Union of India
Karan Singh (Dr.) vs. State of J&K
Krishna Priya Ganguly etc.etc. vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. etc.
Lallaram vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Lazarus Estate Ltd. vs. Beasley
Lillykutty vs. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST Ors.
Madan Kishore vs. Major Sudhir Sewal
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v/s Union of India
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar vs. State of Maharashtra
Mahboob Sahab vs. Sayed Ismail
Meher Rusi Dalal vs. Union of India
Messers Bharat Board Mills vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others
Messrs. Trojan & Co. vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
Om Prakash & Ors. vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.
Panchayat Officer vs. Jai Narain
Puran Singh & Others v/s State of Punjab & Others
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi
Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath
Sahara India (Firm) (1) v/s CIT
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v/s Taj Kumar Rajinder Singh
Seth Chand Ratan v/s Pandit Durga Prasad
Smt. Satya vs. Shri Teja Singh
Sona Ram Ranga Ram vs. Central Government
State of A.P. and Anr. vs. T. Suryachandra Rao
State of Bihar v/s Kripalu Shankar
State of Bihar v/s Sunny Prakash
State of Gujrat v/s Patil Raghav
State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Maharani Usha Devi
State of Maharashtra v/s Chanderkant
Syed Yakoob v/s K.S. Radhakrishnan
Ujjagar Singh vs. Collector, Bhatinda
Union of India v/s Godfrey Philips
Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and Anr. vs. Girdhari Lal Yadav
Vimla Ben Ajit Bhai Patel v/s Vatslaben Patel
A. Adinarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
A.K. Kraipak v/s Union of India
A.V. Papayya Sastry vs. Govt. of A.P.
Ahad Brothers vs. State of M.P.
Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and Anr.
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others
Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors.
Chairman Madappa v/s M.N. Mahantha Devaru
Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Anr. vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.