SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, April 29, 2024

Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1539 : (2022) 5 AIR Bom R 136 : (2022) 5
Bom CR 384

In the High Court of Bombay†

(BEFORE A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.)

Letters Patent Appeal No. 232 of 2012

In
Writ Petition No. 1131 of 2012(D)
Megh Realty and Developers Private Limited,
through its Director-Shri Omprakash Premdutta
Ahuja … Appellant (Orig. Petitioner);
Versus
Learned Joint Charity Commissioner and Others …
Respondents.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 232 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 1131
of 2012(D)
Decided on July 21, 2022, [Arguments Were Heard on :
28/06/2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for appellant.
Shri D.P. Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.
1.
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Kaustubh Lule,
Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Shri U.P. Dable, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Ms. Sheetal Dhawas, Advocate for intervenor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.:— In this Letters Patent Appeal filed under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent a challenge is raised to the order dated
03.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
1131 of 2012 thereby dismissing the writ petition and refusing to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur dated 27.01.2012 in proceedings under Section
36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the Act
of 1950). By that order the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was
pleased to reject the application filed by the respondent no. 2-Trust
seeking permission to alienate its immovable property.
2. The facts relevant for deciding the Letters Patent Appeal are that
the respondent no. 2-Public Trust is duly registered under the
provisions of the Act of 1950. As per Schedule-I of the Act of 1950, it
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

owns field Survey No. 124 admeasuring about 7 H 70 R at Mouza -

Barbadi Taluka and District Wardha. Since the members of the Trust
were of the view that the said land should be utitlized towards proper
upkeepment of the Trust, a resolution was passed by a majority of
eleven members out of twelve for selling the said land. On 15.02.2008
a public advertisement was published inviting bids for purchasing the
said land. Pursuant to that advertisement the Trust received three bids.
Since the offers received were not to the expectation of the trustees, it
was resolved to issue another advertisement. Fresh advertisements
were issued on 08.03.2008 and 10.03.2008. The appellant herein had
offered an amount Rs. 6,02,500/- per acre which was subsequently
enhanced to Rs. 6,10,000/- per acre. Since the amount offered by the
appellant was the highest, a resolution was passed accepting that offer
and resolving to seek permission of the Joint Charity Commissioner for
selling the said land.
3. An application was accordingly moved under Section 36(1)(a) of
the Act of 1950 on 17.07.2008. In that application it was stated that
the said land was lying fallow and the Trust was not receiving any
income from it. Construction of the temple of the Trust was required to
be undertaken since it was noticed that proper arrangements of
devotees visiting the temple could not be made. With a view to
enhance the income of the Trust and to utilize that income for proper
maintenance of the temple and provide facilities to the devotees, it was
resolved to seek permission of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
In the proceedings before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the
President of the Trust examined himself and filed his affidavit. The
respondent no. 3 herein raised an objection to the aforesaid application
by filing such objection on 08.07.2009. The learned Joint Charity
Commissioner considered the application and on 15.02.2011 granted
permission to sell the said land to the appellant. This order of the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner was challenged by the Objector by
preferring Writ Petition being No. 1801 of 2011. The learned Single
Judge while considering the said writ petition noted that the price of
the land approximately was Rs. 16,79,600/- per acre in January 2010.
It was found that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had failed to
consider this aspect and hence by the judgment dated 08.07.2011 the
learned Single Judge was pleased to remand the proceedings for a fresh
consideration to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
4. After remand, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner heard the
parties and recorded a finding that the price of the land as offered by
the appellant was the market price when the advertisement was issued
in the year 2008. It was however found that the Trust had failed to
establish its necessity of alienating the land bearing Survey No. 124.
Another finding recorded was that the price offered by the respondent
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no. 3 and other bidders except the appellant was not sufficient for
granting permission to sell the land. On that count, the application
moved by the Trust came to be rejected. This order was challenged by
the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Petition No.
1131 of 2012. It was held by the learned Single Judge on 03.04.2012
that the satisfaction recorded by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner was based on relevant consideration and the Court could
not sit in appeal over the decision of the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner on the question whether the need was established or
not. On that count, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Being
aggrieved the appellant has challenged the aforesaid order.
5. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant invited attention
of the Court to the events that had transpired since moving of the
application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act of 1950. He submitted
that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had recorded a finding that
the price offered by the appellant for purchasing the land in question
was based on the market value of the said land in the year 2008. The
finding as recorded was not under challenge. The price offered by the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 was not higher than what was offered by the
appellant. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner however found that
there was no necessity for the Trust to alienate the said property.
Referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Trust
dated 25.10.2021 it was submitted that the fact that the Trust was not
earning any income from the said property. This aspect was initially
stated on 17.07.2008 and even today it was the stand of the trustees
that in absence of any income from the said property the Trust had no
option to sell the same. An inspection of the temple was undertaken by
a registered Architect who had found that the structure was in a
dilapidated condition and there was a need for urgent repairs. The land
proposed to be sold was surrounded by a huge industry and as it was
lying fallow, it was likely to be encroached. It was submitted that as
per the ready reckoner the current value of the land was approximately
Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre and the appellant was willing to offer the price
of Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre. Inviting attention to the decisions in
Suburban Education Society, Mumbai v. Charity Commissioner of
Maharashtra State, Mumbai [(2004) 2 Mah LJ 792], Bara Imam Masjid
Trust v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State [(2006) 1 Mah LJ
809] as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Sailesh Developers v.
Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra [(2007) 3 Mah LJ 717], it was
submitted that this Court could consider the need put-forth by the
Trust and after satisfying itself could pass appropriate orders. The
learned counsel submitted that pursuant to law as laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Cyrus Rustom Patel v. Charity
Commissioner, Maharashtra State [(2018) 14 SCC 761], a fresh public
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

notice had been issued inviting bids from the general public. The price
offered by the appellant even thereafter was the highest. He also
referred to the decision in Vilas Anand Kale v. Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur [(2022) 2 Mah LJ 209] and submitted that there
was no reason to deny permission to the Trust to alienate the aforesaid
land. As regards the objection raised by the respondent no. 3, it was
submitted that by the impugned order passed by the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner a finding had been recorded that the amount
offered by the respondent no. 3 was inadequate. In these facts, it was
not open for the respondent no. 3 to oppose the alienation of the said
land since the said respondent had also responded to the
advertisement as issued initially by submitting his bid. Since the
learned Single Judge failed to consider the need for alienation in the
context of interest of the Trust, the impugned order was liable to be set
aside and the permission as sought ought to be granted.
6. Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent
no. 2-Public Trust at the outset submitted that the order impugned in
the Letters Patent Appeal was passed on 03.04.2012 by the learned
Single Judge and the present appeal has been filed on 04.05.2012.
Since the trustees had also intended to challenge the order passed by
the learned Single Judge on finding that such challenge was already
raised by the appellant, a separate Letters Patent Appeal was not
preferred. He submitted that the Trust had retained the amount
received by it from the appellant though the said amount was directed
to be returned with interest by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
Since the Trust was also aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2012 that
amount was not returned to the appellant but was retained by the
Trust. He therefore submitted that even as respondent no. 2 in the
Letters Patent Appeal, the trustees representing the Trust were
supporting the case of the appellant. In furtherance thereof it was
submitted that majority of the trustees had passed a resolution on
18.10.2021 resolving to accept the offer made by the appellant of Rs.
22,00,000/- per acre for the said land. It was then submitted that one
of the reasons which led to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner
refusing to grant permission to alienate the said property was the
failure to submit audited accounts of the Trust. That lacuna had now
been removed and the audited statements for the last five years were
placed on record. Perusal of the same indicated that the financial
position of the Trust was not satisfactory and there was no income from
the land in question. Moreover, the requirements of Rule 24 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules, 1951 (for short, the Rules of 1951)
had been complied with and hence there would now be no impediment
in considering the offer as made by the appellant. Reference was also
made to a sketch map indicating location of the said land and it was
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

submitted that field Survey No. 124 was landlocked and surrounded by
other lands owned by the appellant. For that reason, no other party was
interested in offering any bid for the said land. The 7/12 extracts on
record also indicated that the land was lying fallow. On these counts, it
was submitted that the Trust through its trustees was desirous of
alienating the land in question in the best interest of the Trust.
7. Shri U.P. Dable, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3
supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. According to
him, it was rightly found by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner
that without complying with legal requirements as contemplated by
Section 36(1) of the Act of 1950 and Rule 24 of the Rules of 1951, the
permission as sought was rightly refused. Since no satisfaction was
recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the learned Single
Judge had rightly not interfered with that order. The respondent No. 3
was also a trustee and was interested in safeguarding the interest of
the Trust. The land in question could be put to better use so as to
protect the property of the Trust and hence no interference with the
impugned order was called for.
8. Civil Application (Z) No. 30 of 2021 has been filed by an applicant
seeking permission to intervene in the proceedings. According to the
said applicant pursuant to the public notice that was published on
02.11.2021 the applicant had shown interest in purchasing the said
land. The said applicant was inclined to offer a higher amount than
what was offered by the appellant. By the communication dated
12.12.2021 this aspect was informed to the trustees while offering a
sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre for the said land. An amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- was sought to be deposited alongwith that communication.
Since the said applicant could not inspect the land in question, it was
stated that the earnest money would be paid after inspection would be
completed.
9. We have in the aforesaid backdrop heard the learned counsel for
the parties as well as the intervener. We have also perused the
documentary material placed on record. Before considering the rival
submissions, it would be necessary to refer to some orders passed
during the pendency of the appeal in the light of the fact that the
application seeking permission under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act of
1950 was made on behalf of the Trust on 17.07.2008 and the Letters
Patent Appeal has been pending since the year 2012. On 25.10.2021
while hearing the appeal, the following order was passed:
“The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned
Joint Charity Commissioner in proceedings under Section 36 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the said Act’). The
learned Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to reject the
application filed by the Public Trust for alienation of land bearing
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey No. 124 admeasuring 7 Hectares 70 Ares. The learned Single

Judge has affirmed the said order.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Public Trust in which it
has been stated that the present appellant has offered an amount of
Rs. Twenty-Two lakhs per acre for the aforesaid land. It is further
stated that other surrounding lands already belong to the appellant.
The Trust has indicated its consent for alienating the aforesaid land
in favour of the appellant.
Considering the fact that the present proceedings arise under
Section 36 of the said Act, it would be necessary to give publicity to
the offer made by the appellant. This would enable any party
interested in offering more amount for the aforesaid land to the
Public Trust to make its offer. Accordingly the respondent no. 2-
Public Trust shall publish a notice in two newspapers, one in a local
newspaper having circulation in the district of Wardha and another in
a national newspaper stating therein that the land admeasuring 7
Hectares 70 Ares from Survey No. 124 is proposed to be alienated in
favour of the appellant at Rs. Twenty-Two lakhs per acre. Time of
fifteen days be given for inviting any better offer. The appellant
undertakes to bear expenses of the aforesaid notices. The Secretary
of the Trust shall file an affidavit of compliance and shall also state
the response to the said public notices by the returnable date.
To consider the response to the said notices, put up for further
consideration on 22.11.2021.”
10. In compliance with that order, a public advertisement was
issued inviting interested parties to submit their bids to the trustees.
Thereafter on 22.11.2021 the following order was passed:
“Pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2021 an affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the Secretary of the respondent no. 2-Trust in
which it has been stated that an advertisement indicating the
intention to alienate the land of the Trust was published in two
newspapers as directed. On completion of time limit of fifteen days,
no offer has been received by the Trust.
We have perused the said affidavit and we have been taken
through the decision in Vilas Anand Kale v. Joint Charity
Commissioner, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3054. The learned Senior
Advocate representing the Trust seeks time of one week to place on
record further affidavit on behalf of the Secretary to indicate the
manner in which the proceeds from the sale of the land, if permitted,
would be utilized.
Stand over to 29.11.2021”.
11. After the said order was passed the trustees held a meeting on
25.10.2021 and passed Resolution No. 3 indicating the manner in
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which the amounts received on the sale of the aforesaid land were to be
utilized. Hence on 29.11.2021 the following order was passed:
“Pursuant to the order dated 22/11/2021, an affidavit by the
Secretary of the respondent No. 2-Trust is placed on record. A
reference in that affidavit has been made to the resolutions passed
by the Trust in their meeting held on 25/10/2021. As per resolution
No. 3, of the approximately 50% of the amount that would be
received from the proposed sale of its land, the Trust intends to
purchase Government Bonds. The remaining amount is proposed to
be utilised for investments in immovable assets.
Civil Application No. 30/2021 has been moved seeking permission
to intervene in the present proceedings as the applicant is also
interested in purchasing the land of the Trust in view of the
advertisement dated 02/11/2021. In paragraph 5 of the application
it is stated that the applicant found it difficult to reach the land in
question bearing Survey No. 124 so as to inspect the same. Further
in paragraph 6 it is stated that the applicant is interested in offering
a higher amount than what has been offered by the appellant.
Shri K. R. Lule, learned counsel for the Trust submits that the
applicant would be shown the portion of Survey No. 124 which is
proposed to be sold on 01/12/2021 when the applicant or his
representative could remain present. The applicant shall accordingly
inspect the said property on 01/12/2021 and make its offer to the
Trust by 03/12/2021.
Put up for further consideration on 06/12/2021”.
12. On 06.12.2021 directions were issued by this Court to enable
the intervener to inspect the suit property alongwith the respondent no.
3. The trustees were directed to facilitate such inspection. Thereafter on
14.02.2022 the appellant as well as the intervener having submitted
their offers were directed to deposit 50% of the amount as offered by
them within a period of four weeks. The order dated 14.02.2022 reads
as under:
“Pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2021 affidavit has been filed
by the Secretary of the respondent No. 2-Trust. In that affidavit
reference is made to a communication dated 12.12.2021 that has
been submitted by the intervener, who has filed Civil Application No.
30 of 2021. The intervener has sought to offer an amount of Rs. Fifty
Lakhs per acre for purchasing the property of the Trust. The
appellant has offered an amount of Rs. Twenty-Two lakhs per acre
for purchasing the land of the Trust as recorded in the earlier order.
The Trust owns land admeasuring 7 Hectares 70 Ares. It has passed
a resolution on 25.11.2021 indicating the manner in which the sale
proceeds are to be utilised by it if permission to alienate the property
is granted.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With a view to gauge the bonafides of the appellant as well as the

intervener they are directed to deposit 50 % of the amount as
quoted by them in this Court within a period of four weeks from
today. In the meanwhile, the Trust shall place on record its audited
statements for the last five years.
Stand over four weeks”.
13. The appellant deposited an amount of 2,10,00,000/- in this
Court on 09.03.2022. The intervener however failed to deposit any
amount and hence a further time of one week was granted to the
intervener to indicate his bonafides. Accordingly, on 14.03.2022 the
following order was passed:
“By the order dated 14.02.2022, with a view to assess the
bonafides of the appellant as well as the intervener, they were
directed to deposit 50% of the amount quoted by them in this Court.
In terms of that order, the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.
2,10,00,000/- on 09.03.2022. The intervener, however, has till today
not deposited any amount. Further opportunity of one week is
granted to the intervener to indicate his bonafides in pursuance of
the order dated 14.02.2022. An additional affidavit has been filed by
the Secretary of the Trust stating therein that the audited reports
from the years 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 have been placed on
record. A statement be made as to whether this audited reports have
been filed in the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
Stand over to 21st March, 2022”.
14. Despite grant of such time, the intervener failed to deposit 50%
of the amount offered by him. Hence on 31.03.2022 the following order
was passed:
“By the order dated 14th March, 2022 at the request of the
intervener time of one week had been granted to enable the
intervener to deposit 50% of the amount quoted. Though the period
of one week has passed, the intervener has not deposited 50% of
amount as quoted by him. There is no appearance on behalf of the
intervener.
The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has placed on record
an affidavit in which it has been stated that the audit reports for the
preceding five years from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 have been
submitted in the Office of the Joint Charity Commissioner on
19.03.2022 through online mode.
Stand over to 4th April, 2022 for further consideration”.
15. It is in the light of these events that the learned counsel for the
parties have been heard in the Letters Patent Appeal.
16. At the outset, we may note that the Public Trust had on
17.07.2008 moved an application seeking permission to alienate its
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

property under Section 36(1) (a) of the Act of 1950. Such permission
was initially granted on 15.02.2011 but that was set aside in Writ
Petition No. 1801 of 2011 that was preferred by the respondent no. 3
herein. After the proceedings were remanded for a fresh consideration,
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner refused to grant permission
principally on the ground that the Trust had failed to make out a case of
necessity for selling its land. As regards the amount offered by the
present appellant, it was held that the said amount was higher than the
prevailing market rate in the year 2008. In the writ petition preferred
by the appellant assailing that order, the learned Single Judge refused
to interfere with the satisfaction as recorded by the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner. In this appeal preferred by the highest bidder
the Public Trust has joined cause and has urged through its trustees
that it was still desirous of alienating its land for enhancing the income
of the Public Trust and putting its assets to better use. The Letters
Patent Appeal was filed in the year 2012 and when it was taken up for
hearing, the trustees by majority have passed another resolution on
18.10.2021 resolving to reiterate the desire to alienate its assets. The
proceedings having been remanded once and the period of almost ten
years having elapsed with the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, it
was found reasonable to consider whether the need for alienating the
Trust property was subsisting even at this point of time. Though the
order passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by one of
the bidders, the trustees by subsequently passing a resolution have
reiterated the intention to alienate the property of the Trust since
according to them the need for doing so persists. It is in this view of
the matter that the Court deems it appropriate to consider the prayers
as made by the trustees seeking permission to alienate its property
under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act of 1950.
17. When the order passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner on 27.01.2012 is perused, it becomes clear that the
appellant herein was the highest bidder having offered an amount of
6,02,500/- per acre. The amount offered by the respondent no. 3 and
other bidders was found to be lower than the bid submitted by the
appellant. A finding was recorded by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner that when the initial public notice was issued on
08.03.2008 the price offered by the appellant was the highest and that
it could be said to be the market price at that point of time. The learned
Joint Charity Commissioner however found that the material produced
by the trustees to indicate the necessity for alienating the trust
property was not made out. The trustees had not placed on record
audited statements and returns of the Trust. The manner in which the
consideration received would be utilised was not indicated. Since the
balance sheet was also not available, the learned Joint Charity
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commissioner recorded a finding that the trustees had failed to make

out a case of necessity for alienating its property. A finding was also
recorded in paragraph 21 of the order that the objection raised by the
respondent no. 3 to the alienation was an afterthought since he was
also a trustee and had not objected to the resolution resolving to
alienate the Trust's property. The learned Single Judge did not interfere
with said satisfaction as recorded.
18. The Full Bench of this Court in Sailesh Developers (supra)
considered the following questions that were referred to it:
“(i) Whether the power vesting in the Charity Commissioner under
Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is confined to
grant or refusal of sanction to a particular sale transaction which
the trustees propose to make or it extends to compelling trustees
to sell or transfer the property to another party who participates in
the proceedings under Section 36 and gives his offer?
(ii) Whether the party who comes forward to submit his offer directly
before the Charity Commissioner in a pending application under
Section 36 of the said Act of 1950 has locus standi to challenge
the order passed in a proceeding under Section 36?
19. After considering the legal position, the Full Bench answered the
aforesaid questions as under:
“30.. Hence, we answer the questions referred to our decision as
under:
(i) The power vesting in the Charity Commissioner under Section
36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is not confined
merely to grant or refusal of sanction to a particular sale
transaction in respect of which sanction is sought under
Section 36 of the said Act. The power of the Charity
Commissioner extends to inviting offers from the members of
the public and directing the trustees to sell or transfer the trust
property to a person whose bid or quotation is the best having
regard to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust. Hence
we declare that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Jigna Construction Co. Mumbai v. State of
Maharashtra does not lay down correct law”.
(ii) The party who comes forward and submits his offer directly
before the Charity Commissioner and complies with other
requirements as may be laid down by the Charity
Commissioner in a pending application under Section 36 of the
said Act of 1950 has a locus standi to challenge the final order
passed in a proceeding under Section 36. However, the scope
of the challenge will be limited as indicated in paragraph 29
above.”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. It is thus clear from the aforesaid decision that even during the
pendency of the proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Act of 1950
offers can be invited from the members of the public with a view to
ensure that the property of the trust can be alienated at the best price
possible. Reference is also required to be made to the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Cyrus Rustom Patel (supra) where in
paragraph 26 it has been held as under:
“26. The power to grant sanction has to be exercised by the
Charity Commissioner, taking into consideration three classic
requirements i.e. “the interest, benefit, and protection” of the Trust.
The expression that sanction may be accorded subject to such
conditions as the Charity Commissioner may think fit under Section
31(1)(b) and Section 36(1)(c). The Charity Commissioner has to be
objectively satisfied that the property should be disposed of in the
interest of public trust; in doing so, he has right to impose such
conditions as he may think fit, taking into account the aforesaid
triple classic requirements. It is also open to the Charity
Commissioner, in exercise of power of Section 36(2) of the Act, to
revoke the sanction, given under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 36 of
the Act, on the ground that the sanction had been obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation or those material facts have been suppressed
while obtaining sanction. The intendment of the revocation provision
is also to subserve the interest, benefit, and protection of the Trust
and its property”.
21. From the aforesaid it is clear that the paramount consideration in
such matters is the interest, benefit and protection of the Trust. The
original proceedings having been initiated under Section 36(1) (a) of
the Act of 1950 and the present proceedings having arisen from the
order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, there is no
reason for this Court not to examine what is best in the larger interests
of the Trust. The triple requirements as regards interest, benefit and
protection of the Trust can even now be considered especially when the
Trust has reiterated its intention of alienating its property through
majority of its trustees.
22. Thus keeping in mind this legal position the Court in the present
appeal had permitted the Trust to again publish a notice in two
newspapers, one having circulation in the District of Wardha and
another in national newspaper indicating its intention to alienate the
land in question. As noted above, the appellant pursuant to that public
notice offered price of Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre. We may note that as
per ready reckoner for the year 2021-2022 the value of field Survey No.
124 has been shown to be Rs. 17,29,920/- per hectare which
approximately comes to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. Another offer received
was from the applicant seeking intervention. The said applicant sought
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to offer an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre for the said land.
Keeping these offers in mind, the appellant as well as the intervener
were directed to deposit 50% of the amount offered to show their
bonafides. While the appellant deposited 50% of the amount offered
which was Rs. 2,10,00,000/-, the intervener despite grant of sufficient
time failed to deposit any amount in this Court. He tendered a cheque
of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the trustees of the Trust which they did not encash
for the reason that it was not equivalent to 50% of the amount offered.
It is thus clear that in response to the public notice as issued on
02.11.2021 in daily ‘Loksatta’ having circulation in the district of
Wardha and in ‘Indian Express,’ a national newspaper on 02.11.2021 it
is only the appellant who responded to the same and offered an amount
of Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre. The trustees have placed on record the
ready reckoner prepared by the Department of Registration and
Stamps, Government of Maharashtra for the year 2021-2022. The
market value of Survey No. 124 therein is indicated at Rs. 7,00,000/-
per acre approximately. It is true that the ready reckoner cannot be the
sole basis for indicating the actual market value of the land and that it
is prepared only for the purposes of levying stamp duty on the
sale/mortgage of such land. Nevertheless, the rate quoted therein could
be an indicator of the approximate value of the land. Since the
appellant has submitted its bid pursuant to two public notices and that
there has been no other response to the said public notices, we are
satisfied that the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre offered by the
appellant is a fair offer indicating the value of the said land. For this
very land, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded a
finding that the price offered of Rs. 6,10,000/- per acre in 2008 was a
fair offer. The intervener has failed to deposit 50% of the amount
offered despite grant of opportunity.
23. Coming to the consideration of the aspect of the interest and
benefit of the Trust to alienate its property, it can be seen that from the
balance sheet and audited statements for the last five years from 2016-
2017 to 2020-2021 there is no income received from the said property.
The income from the rent is shown to be Rs. 35,000/- for the financial
year ending on 31.03.2021. The audited statements for the previous
five years have been placed on record in this Court as directed since it
was found by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that the trustees
had failed to place on record the audited statements alongwith the
balance sheet before it. From the map placed on record, it is clear that
Survey No. 124 belonging to the Trust is surrounded by Survey Nos.
112, 121, 122, 123, 125 and 127 which belong to the appellant. The
trustees have stated that its land is surrounded from all sides by the
property owned by the appellant and it has no income from the said
land. The property is incapable of generating income and is found to be
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

financially unviable. There is also a likelihood of encroachment being

committed on the land since the same is lying fallow. The aspect of
protecting the Trust property also thus arises. It is further seen that the
temple owned by the Trust was inspected by an Architect in October,
2021 and as per his report substantial work would be required to be
undertaken to strengthen the structure. Thereafter an estimate has
been placed on record to indicate expenses towards making
construction on the first floor of the said temple. This is with a view to
provide various facilities to devotees who would visit the temple. We
find that the trustees by majority have passed a resolution on
18.10.2021 proposing to accept the offer made by the appellant. The
audited statements for the last five years alongwith balance sheet and
revenue records indicate that the land in question has been lying fallow
and does not provide any source of income to the Trust. On the
contrary, the Trust desires to provide better facilities for devotees at the
temple by undertaking construction on the first floor after making
necessary repairs to the structure on the ground floor. The
apprehension of encroachment being committed on the land lying
fallow also cannot be ruled out. In the light of this material on record
which was lacking before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, we
find that the aspect of need, benefit and protection of the Trust to
alienate its land and then utilise the proceeds for providing better
facilities at the temple for its devotees stands satisfied.
24. With the passage of time the amount offered for the said land
from Rs. 6,10,000/- per acre has now been enhanced to Rs. 22,00,000/
- per acre. The appreciation in the value of the land is reasonable
considering the fact that it is land locked from all sides. In absence of
any contrary material on record to indicate any malafide on the part of
the trustees, there is no doubt about the genuineness of the need as
made out which is supported by the documentary material in the form
of balance sheet and audited statements. We thus find that instead of
permitting the land to lie fallow and unviable, the interest of the Trust
would be served by permitting it to alienate the same and thereafter
utilize the proceeds from such sale for better and efficient management
as well as administration of the other assets of the Trust in the form of
the temple. It is thus held that the trustees have made out a case
indicating the need to permit them to alienate Survey No. 124
belonging to the Trust for proper utilisation of the other assets under
Section 36(1)(a) of the Act of 1950.
25. Since a case has been made out for permitting the trustees to
alienate its assets, it would be necessary to specify the manner in
which the sale proceeds would be utilised. Keeping that aspect in mind
the Secretary of the Trust had been directed to indicate the manner in
which the sale proceeds would be utilised by the trustees. The
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of the Trust has on 29.11.2021 filed an affidavit indicating

the manner in which the amount received would be utilized. It has
been stated therein as under:
“3.1] The area of the land to be sold is 7.70 Hectares i.e. 19.027
Acres. The applicant has offered a price @ Rs. 22 Lakhs per acre
which amount comes to Rs. 4,18,59,400/-. This sale consideration
which the Respondent no. 2 Trust will receive would be utilised for
the betterment of the Trust in utmost transparent manner.
3.2] The trustees agree to invest the 50% amount with the Govt.
security bonds/schemes and also FDRs of Nationalised Bank which
will fetch maximum interest rate. It is further submitted that the
principal amount will not be touched except in case of urgent
necessity. The daily and routine expenses will be borne from the
interest amount received, monthly/quarterly/yearly, as the case may
be.
3.3] It is submitted that now-a-days concept of agricultural
tourism is taking a shape where land is being developed and the
place is rented for a day for various activities such as playing,
gardening, bullock card ride, actual farming under supervision, etc.
The Trust has also plan to purchase a land nearby Wardha town and
to develop the said land to promote such activity. It is submitted
that in the said land the Trust has also a plan to develop Ved-
Pathshala, Goshala also. The amount of rent received from this
activity is to be utilised for the trust.
3.4] It is submitted that the building of the Mandir is an old
construction and it needs urgent repairing. Therefore, some amount
will be utilized for the construction and redevelopment of the Mandir.
3.5] The trust has plan to construct a community hall and some
rooms which will be used as Bhakt-Nivas and a centre for socio-
cultural-religious events.
26. The aforesaid statements as made indicating the activities to be
undertaken pursuant to receiving the sale consideration are accepted
and the trustees would be bound to utilise the sale proceeds in the
manner stated hereinabove.
27. In the light of these developments we find that a case has been
made out to permit the trustees to alienate field Survey No. 124 under
Section 36 (1)(a) of the Act of 1950. Since such a case has been made
out, the order dated 03.04.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 1131 of 2012 is set aside. The application moved by the
trustees dated 17.07.2008 seeking permission to alienate Survey No.
124 is allowed. The trustees on Schedule I of the public trust register
are permitted to sell Survey No. 124 admeasuring 7 H 70 R or 19 Acres
027 Gunthas to the appellant for consideration at Rs. 22,00,000/- per
acre. The 50% amount deposited by the appellant in this Court with
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Monday, April 29, 2024
Printed For: Shailja Singh, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

accrued interest is permitted to be transferred in the account of the

Trust and the balance amount of consideration shall be paid by the
appellant within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter the
trustees of the Trust would act in accordance with the statements made
in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5 of the affidavit of the Secretary dated
29.11.2021. The trustees shall after a period of six months from today
submit a report in the Office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur
indicating the steps taken in compliance with the aforesaid directions
and the learned Joint Charity Commissioner would be free to issue such
ancillary directions as are warranted in the facts of the case and
dependent upon the requirements of the Trust. The cheque for the
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- that was deposited by the applicant in Civil
Application No. 30 of 2021 which has not been encashed would stand
cancelled at the behest of the said applicant.
28. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
29. Civil Application No. 30 of 2021 stands also disposed of.
30. At this stage the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays
that the effect and operation of the judgment be stayed for a period of
six weeks from today. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that since the period of four weeks has been granted to the appellant to
pay the balance amount of consideration, there was no reason to grant
any further time.
31. In the facts of the case, it is directed that the judgment shall
operate after a period of four weeks from today.
———
†
Nagpur Bench

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.