Partly allowed

Ramsukh Santokiram Chandak Charitable Trust v. the Chairty Commissioner-Maharashtra State and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2007WP/1750/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A charity trust sought approval for developing exempted land but was rejected by the Charity Commissioner for undervaluation. The High Court quashed the rejection, remanding the matter to consider petitioner's explanations regarding property value and potential compensation consequences under the Urban Land Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Joint Charity Commissioner for fresh consideration within two months.

Ramsukh Santokiram Chandak Charitable Trust Vs the Chairty… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1750 OF 2006

¶4

 Shri Ramsukh Santokiram Chandak
 Charitable Trust ..Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶5

 The Charity Commissioner,
 Maharashtra State, Mumbai
 & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Petitioner.
 Mrs.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2007
P.C. :

¶8

 Notice for final hearing of this petition was
 issued in view of the obvious urgency. The trust
 has obtained an exemption order under section 20 of
 The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.

¶9

 2. As I intend remanding the matter to the learned
 Joint Charity Commissioner for re-consideration, it
 is not necessary to set out the facts in detail.
 The trust is the owner of the property, a
 substantial portion whereof has been declared as
 excess vacant land. It is in respect of that part
 of the land which has been so declared as excess

¶10

:2:

¶11

 vacant land that the exemption order under section
 20 has been issued in favour of the trust. Pursuant
 thereto, the trust had entered into an agreement
 with a third party for development of the said land
 for a consideration of Rs.31,00,000/-. The trust
 thereafter sought approval under section 36 of the
 Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. The same has been
 rejected. The present petition challenges the said
 order.

¶12

 3. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has held
 that the consideration of Rs.31,000/- is less than
 the market consideration, inter-alia in view of the
 ready reckoner and in view of what is stated in the
 Petitioner’s application itself. However, two
 things are clear in this regard. Firstly, the
 Petitioner has set out in detail inter-alia in
 paragraph 6/7 of the application, the reasons why
 the said property will not fetch the market value.
 These facts have not been considered in the impugned
 order.

¶13

 4. Even assuming that the price specified in the
 ready reckoner is correct surely the Petitioner was
 entitled to indicate/establish the factors which
 would depict the price. These are relevant factors

¶14

:3:

¶15

 which ought to have been taken into consideration.
 On a remand the Joint Charity Commissioner is
 requested to consider the said facts, as also any
 other facts the Petitioner may rely upon.

¶16

 5. An important factor which ought to be considered
 is the consequence of refusal of approval under
 section 36. According to the Petitioner, in the
 event of refusal of the approval, the Petitioner
 will be entitled to only a nominal compensation in
 accordance with the provisions of the Urban Land
 (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. This is because
 if the approval is refused, the permission under
 section 20 would also come to an end.

¶17

 6. In the impugned order, it is held that the
 Petitioner did not indicate how the price of
 Rs.80,000/- was arrived at. Mr.Godbole submitted
 that the same is calculated as per section 11 of the
 Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. On
 remand, this aspect shall also be considered. The
 ultimate idea is to ensure that the trust is not
 deprived of the benefit or any advantage that it may
 have gained, including under the exemption order.

¶18

 7. It is made clear that the Joint Charity

¶19

:4:

¶20

 Commissioner shall be at liberty while re-hearing
 the matter, to invite fresh bids in such manner as
 he deems proper for ascertaining the correct market
 value. To this end, he is also at liberty to
 enquire from the earlier bidders whether they are
 willing to raise their bids. The Petitioner is also
 at liberty to obtain fresh quotations.

¶21

 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set
 aside.

¶22

 9. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall consider
 the application under section 36 afresh, after
 considering, inter-alia, the above aspects.

¶23

 10. In view of the urgency, the Joint Charity
 Commissioner is requested to dispose of the
 application as early as possible and preferably
 within two months from the date of the receipt of
 this order.

¶24

 11. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

 All parties are requested to act on an ordinary

¶26

 copy of this order duly authenticated by the
 Sheristedar/Personal Assistant.

Ramsukh Santokiram Chandak Charitable Trust v. the Chairty Commissioner-Maharashtra State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsukh Santokiram Chandak Charitable Trust v. the Chairty Commissioner-Maharashtra State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepika Paresh Thakkar Vs Paresh Muljibhai Thakkar and Ors.

Tukaram Shripati Jambhale Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation

Doordarshan Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Anantrao Vanakudre Vs Raghunandan Prabhakar Vanakudre and Ors.

Shankar Yashwant Mali and Ors. Vs Shushilabai Balaji Kulkarni and Ors.

Prabhawati Mahadeo Anjarlekar (Desd) Lrs. Vs Smita Ratnakar Saigamkar and Ors.