Jyotishchandra Indurai Antani vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & 6 Others

Biren Vaishnav, J

This is an appeal filed by the appellant â€" original petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing the petition filed by the appellant being Special Civil Application No. 5417 of 2016.

The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

2.1 The petitioner who happens to be a retired Charity Commissioner residing at Surat and not associated at all with the activities of respondent no. 4

â€" Trust was the original petitioner. The subject in question was a dealing of lands held by the respondent no. 4 â€" Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha

â€" a registered public trust. The trust was holding a huge land at Thaltej being Final Plot No. 104 in T.P. Scheme No. 2 Final Plot 104/paiki

admeasuring about 40,836 sq. mt. According to the respondent trust, the land was gifted to the trust in the year 1925 for using and rearing cattle. It

appears that as the land which was otherwise in the outskirts of the city, with the development in the city of Ahmedabad, came within the developed

area, the trustees thought it fit to sell the land on converting the same into N.A land so that the amount out of the sale proceeds could be used for the

maintenance of cattle and other expenses of the trust. The trustees passed a resolution accordingly unanimously agreeing that the land be sold. Land

was sold to respondents no. 5 & 6 of the present appeal. This sale by the trust which was confirmed by the Charity Commissioner was brought into

question by the petitioner.

From the facts, it is apparent that the sale of land was in accordance with law by publishing advertisement in the local dailies including in the

 Financial Express, Bombay and Delhi editions. Essentially, the ground on which the petition was opposed, apart from the merits of the case, was on

the ground that the petitioner was not a person having interest in accordance with Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The same reads as

under:

2(10) ""person having interest"" includes-

(a) in the case of a temple, person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or

who is entitled to partake or is in that habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof,

(b) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs,

(c) in the case of a wakf, a person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and includes a person who has right to

worship or to perform any religious rite in a Mosque, Idgah, Imambara, Dargah, Maqbara or other religious institution connected with the wakf or to

participate in any religious or charitable institution under the wakf,

(d) in the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any member of such society, and

(e) in the case of any other public trust any trustee or beneficiary;â€​

Apparently, it is evident that the original petitioner â€" present appellant was a retired Charity Commissioner residing at Surat and not associated

with any similar activity and concerned with the trust or maintenance of cattle. Reading of the pleadings in the petition do not disclose any such fact.

The learned Single Judge on merits has held as under in paragraphs no. 12 to 14:

“12. As could be seen from the detailed order passed by the Charity Commissioner and the submissions which have been canvassed, the land was

gifted years back in 1925 to respondent No.4 trust. Now, with the development it has been within the municipal limits and situated in the residential

area forming it a valuable asset for the trust. The same land which had been useful for cattle rearing and grazing earlier has been a valuable asset

with increase in the municipal corporation limits of the city of Ahmedabad. Moreover, with the passage of time, though it had remained an agricultural

land, there was development around the land like residential areas which would not permit the use of the land for cattle rearing and grazing. Therefore,

the trust may have considered for sale of the land to realise the amount and utilize the amount for the purpose of the object of the trust. In other

words, for fulfillment of the object of the trust regarding maintenance of the cattle the trustees may have thought of sale of the land which had

become valuable and not useful for grazing. Therefore, the amount realised could be invested to meet with the expenses of the trust. These aspects

have been canvased by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Joshi referring to the activities of the trust as well as the expenses and the need for sale of the land.

As could be seen, the land is now in a developed area within the municipal limits and therefore the trustees have first got it converted into N.A.

land which could fetch higher value. Thereafter they have thought it desirable to sell it as the land in question would not have been used for rearing

cattle and therefore since it has been a valuable land the amount realised could be invested for the betterment and object of the trust. These are the

issues where it is better left to the discretion of the trustees who are managing the affairs of the trust and it is not even the case of the petitioner that

the procedure has not been followed as required under the law. The Charity Commissioner, on the basis of material, having been satisfied has granted

the permission. Therefore, as could be seen from the record, when the trustees have unanimously passed a resolution dated 25.6.2014 confirming

resolution No. 4 passed earlier dated 18.6.2011, it would not be in the interest of justice for this court to question their wisdom or scrutinize the

decision for sale of the land. When the trustees who are experienced persons have exercised their discretion unanimously by passing the resolutions

for the purpose of the object of the trust and fulfillment the object of the trust it will not be desirable for the court to disturb or question their decision.

The submissions made by learned advocate Shri Panchal referring to the advertisement that it has been provided to realise more than Rs. 368

crores and the same has not been fulfilled is misconceived. A close look at the advertisement would suggest that it is the upset price suggesting a

bottom-line as canvassed by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Kavina. Therefore, if the price has been quoted by a bidder as per the upset price it would be a

valid offer and it is for the concerned trust or the respective authority to examine whether it is just and proper or whether further efforts could have

been made.â€​

Thus, looking to the definition of a  person having interest  as defined under Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it is evident that a

retired Charity Commissioner had no business or locus to file a petition challenging the sale when the sale was confirmed after obtaining better

competitive bids. It can, therefore, only be said that the appellant â€" original petitioner was a busy body and the petition at his instance could not have

been filed.

Looking to the factual position and the position of law, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.