Mavji Keshrabhai Bhagat (Patel) vs State Of Gujarat & 12 Other(S)

Dr.Vineet Kothari, J

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.3.2016 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: C.L. Soni - J. as he then was) dismissed the Special Civil Application No.4785 of 2016 - Mavji Kesharabhai Bhagat (Patel) v. State of Gujarat and 12 others. The operative portion of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is quoted below:

"4. The Court having heard learned advocate Mr. Patel finds that the grievance in fact sought to be ventilated by the petitioner is that the property in question was purchased by the Committee of petitioner Trust and such property could not have been transferred simply by entry in the revenue record. The document of sale at Annexure­F shows that the property in question was purchased by Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti, Mandavi­ Kutch. Mr. Patel, however, would contend that Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti is part of the petitioner Trust and he has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure­E, to point out that Mandavi Hostel Nirman Samiti is appointed by the petitioner Trust for the purpose of construction of hostel and donations were being received for such purpose, for which receipts at Annexure­E were being issued. However, Mandavi Hostel Nirman Samiti has not purchased the property by registered sale deed. The property was purchased by Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner wants this Court to hold that Mandavi Hostel Nirman Samiti and Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti is one and the same and therefore, for all purposes, the property purchased by registered sale deed by Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti should be believed to be the property of the petitioner Trust. However, such plea cannot be accepted as both the committees appear to be different. Mr. Patel has failed to show any document or material to show that Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti is part of the petitioner Trust. If such are the facts situation, the Secretary could not be said to have committed any error in holding that the petitioner Trust has no locus to challenge the entry No.3582. The Secretary has clearly observed in his impugned order that nowhere the name of the petitioner Trust figured in the matter of purchase of the property in question. It is further observed that it is a matter of internal arrangement to show the property of Shri Patidar Sarvodaya Trust which got registration No.1868. Mr. Patel, however, would submit that Section 135(D)(8) of the Code otherwise obliges the certifying authority not to certify entry if entry violates or contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or any other Act. The Court, however, finds that such issue in the present case does not arise inasmuch as it is the claim of the petitioner Trust that the Committee which purchased the property was part of the Trust and thus entry showing transfer of the property in question could not have been recorded in absence of any document of sale. Such would amount to going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner would have any claim unless it is established before the competent Court that the property was purchased by the Committee of the petitioner Trust. If the petitioner is nowhere concerned with the property, the petitioner would not be permitted to make grievance as regards entry in revenue record and cannot be permitted to even contend that the certifying officer was under obligation not to certify the entry as the entry violates the provision of the Code or other Act. It is required to mention that the petitioner had filed appeal against the entry and has failed upto the Secretary. The petitioner, therefore, cannot contend that irrespective of his failure before the authorities below in the proceedings initiated by him, the certifying authority was under obligation not to certify the entry as provided in Section 135(D)(8) of the Code.

At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner permitting to enter the property in the PTR in the name of Patidar Sarvodaya Trust is set aside by the higher authority. However, such would not make any difference as the petitioner is otherwise held not to have locus to make any grievance as regards entry No.3582 mutated in the revenue record.

In view of above, the Court finds that there is no substance in the petition. The petition is therefore, rejected."

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties also apprised the Court that a First Appeal namely, First Appeal No.870 of 2016 - Mavaji Kashrambhai Patel v. Shivdas Govind Chabhaiya is pending in this Court in which the dispute about the change of entries in the Revenue Record which presently exists vide Entry No.3582 in the name of Patidar Sarvodaya Trust and that some of the Trustees of Patidar Sarvodaya Trust are being represented by learned Counsel Mr. Mehul Rathod.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Vishal T. Patel empathetically submitted before us that the previous Entry No.1572 of 1994 in favour of the Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti (Committee), Mandvi­ Kutch based on the registered sale deed dated 5.6­1­1994 executed by Ali Mohmad and others in favour of Shri Kutch Kadva Patidar Hostel (Chhatralaya) Nirman Samiti (Committee), Mandvi, Kutch was the correct entry and the change of entry made by the Charity Commissioner was incorrect and not sustainable.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to examine the merits of the rival contentions in the present Letters Patent Appeal and we are of the considered opinion that the said entry as it exists today in the Revenue Record namely Entry No.3582 in the name of Patidar Sarvodaya Trust may exist only subject to final decision of the First Appeal No.870 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

The parties will maintain status quo of the affairs of the said property in question and will abide by the final decision of the First Appeal No.870 of 2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge.

With these observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Consequently, the Civil Application (For Joining Party) No.1 of 2020 also stands disposed of.