Smt. Krishna Sethi Memorial Charitable Trust vs The State of Haryana and Others

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner which is a Charitable Trust duly registered applied to respondeht No. 3/Haryana Urban Development Authdrity in Panchkula (hereinafter called ''the HUDA'') for the allotment of a plot for the construction of a Dharamshala, vide application dated October 24, 1989 Dr. K. L. Sethi, Chairman of the Trust vide letter dated January 29,1990 Annexure P/2, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner/Ambala/respondent No. 2, who was the authority to give a ''No objection Certificate'', before the allotment of the plot could be made, authorising him to appoint any authority to supervise and oversee that the land allotted was being used as per the submission made in the application and also as per the memorandum of the Trust. It was further stated that the authority so appointed would be empowered to see that the Dharamshala so constructed was used for the purposes declared in the memorandum of the Trust. Respondent No. 2 thereafter addressed a communication Annexure P/3 dated February 14, 1990 to respondent No. 3 stating that the land could be allotted to the petitioner subject to the condition that S.D.O. (Civil) Panchkula was taken as Ex-Officio Chairman of the Trust in order to safeguard its aims and objects. It was also stated therein that in case the management of the Trust incorporated the necessary provisions in the trust-deed, there would be no objection to the allotment of the land in question. Respondent No. 3 thereafter addressed a communication dated March 30, 1990, Annexure P-4 to the Chairman of the Trust whereby it was stipulated that the case for allotment of the land would be considered provided the Trust gave its approval to the appointment of the S.D.O (Civil), Panchkula, as the Ex Officio Chairman of the Trust by making the necessary amendment in the Trust Deed. The petitioner has impugned Annexures P/3 and P/4, to the extent that the aforesaid condition has been imposed.

In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the stand taken is that the condition was imposed as the Chairman of the trust had authorised respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-2 to do so, for ensuring that the land allotted was utilized for the specific purpose for which it had been given. Respondent No. 3 in its reply has stated that as no land had yet been allotted to the petitioner no right accured to it and that, in any case, the allotment could be made only after full compliance had been made with Annexure P/4.

3 It has been argued by Miss Nirmaljit Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no legal basis for the imposition of the condition that had been put by respondent No. 2 and even if it be assumed that the Trust itself had authorised the imposition of the condition that was only f6r limited purpose for overseeing that the Dharamshala to be constructed was used for the purpose of the Trust as laid down in its memorandum. She also pointed out with reference to the pleadings that the land had been allotted to the Jain and Jat Sabhas in Panchkula itself for construction of their buildings and no such condition had been imposed on those organisations.

Mr. D. D. Vasudeva, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, has urged that the condition was imposed on the petitioner-Trust as it had voluntarily agreed to it and in any case the respondent had the right to see that the land allotted was utilized in a proper way and as such the condition imposed was perfectly valid.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Every State action must find its justification and genesis in some rule, regulation or law and despite prodding the State counsel has been unable to point out any such provision nor is one discernible. Moreover the trust itself had agreed only to allow the supervision of the construction to be made on the land in question so that the respondents could determine that the land was properly utilised. There was absolutely no submission by the petitioners that they would be willing to accept some rank outsider as an Ex-Officio Chairman of; the Trust by making the necessary amendments in the Trust-deed. I also find that in the allotment of land to the Jain and Jat Sabhas, as no such condition had been imposed, no justification for imposing such a condition with respect to the petitioner can be spelt out. Further more, the -respondents have ample powers to see that the land is utilised for the purpose set out in the case of misuser, action can be taken under the conditions of allotment itself.

The petition is, accordingly allowed, Annexures P-3 and P-4 are quashed to the extent that the case for allotment could be considered only if the S.D.O. (Civil), Panchkula, was made Ex-Officio, Chairman of the Trust. A direction is accordingly issued to the respondents to finalise the case of the petitioner within a period of two months keeping in view the requirements of Annexure P-4 without insisting on the acceptance of condition No. 1 therein. While passing an order in Civil Miscellaneous No. 804 of 1991 in the present writ petition, one plot has been kept reserved for the petitioner I am told . that the stay is still in operation as it had been made absolute on April 10, 1991, after hearing both sides. On realisation of the proceedings, the plot kept reserved will be allotted to the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. No costs.