Allowed

Saibaba Foundation, Saipatham, Shirdi, Rahata, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2015CA/10478/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the application by the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust for approval of a land exchange transaction with an intervenor trust. The Court held the transaction was of minor nature, part of day-to-day business, and the activities of the intervenor trust were not detrimental to the public interest.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No. 10423 of 2014 allowed as prayed for; Civil Application No. 10478 of 2014 stood disposed of.

Saibaba Foundation, Saipatham, Shirdi, Rahata, Ahmednagar… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

ca10423.14

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10423 OF 2014 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10478 OF 2014
IN

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 18 OF 2011

¶7

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust
(Shirdi), Tq. Rahata,

¶8

..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
and others.

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Mr.S.R. Chaukidar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent/ State.
Mr.V.D. Hon, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate for R-3.
Mr.P.R.Patil,Adv.for petitioner in PIL.
Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for respondent Nos.18 & 19.
Mr.V.S. Kadam, Advocate for applicant in CA No.10478 of 2014.

¶13

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &

¶14

V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATED :14.01.2015

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

1.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶17

2.By this application the applicant-trust is
seeking approval of the Court for a transaction of
exchange of a piece of land. It is stated that a small
piece of land belonging to the applicant-trust would be

¶18

transferred to the intervenor-trust (Saibaba Foundation,
Chennai) and in exchange they will hand over similar
piece of land to the applicant-trust.

¶19

3.The intervenor-trust acquired such piece of land
independently and the same is offered to the applicant-
trust. Such transaction requires government permission
and the same is already secured. There appears no
difficulty for us for permitting this transaction. But,
learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Talekar asserted
that the transaction in question is not a part of day-to-
day business of the trust. It might amount to a policy
decision and the present board of trustees appointed by
the Court should not be permitted to undertake this
transaction. Having regard to nature of transaction
compared to the day-to-day business of the applicant
trust, we are of the view that the transaction in
question is of minor nature and it cannot be said that it
is an important policy decision. We have no hesitation to
hold that this transaction is more or less part of day-
to-day business of the trust.

¶20

4.Learned counsel for the respondent raised second
objection by saying that the intervenor-trust should not
be encouraged to acquire more land at Shirdi. Admittedly
the intervenor trust has a piece of land near Saibaba

¶21

Temple, where they have already established an Ashram The activities which they carry on from their plot of land at Shirdi is not at all found detrimental to the interest of the general public or in particular the applicant-trust. We are told that the intervenor-trust propagates philosophy of Saibaba and allied activities. The founder of the trust himself was a devotee of Saibaba.

¶22

5.Learned counsel for the respondent also asserted
that the intervenor-trust is trying to pass off their
establishment as that of the applicant-trust. This
submission is untenable. The devotees of Saibaba come to
Shirdi and visit the main temple/Shrine of Saibaba. They
are aware that the main Shrine/temple of Saibaba is an
independent establishment and place of worship than
numerous other temples situated in surrounding area at
Shirdi. By no stretch of imagination, it is virtually
impossible to pass of any other temple at Shirdi as the
main shrine or temple.

¶23

6.Learned counsel for the respondent also asserted
that the intervenor-trust is indulging in other dubious
activities. This allegation is made for the sake of
opposing the application. Had there been any difficulty
between the applicant-trust and the intervenor-trust,

¶24

they would not have entered into the proposed
transaction. In addition to this learned counsel for the
intervenor-trust stated that, his client does not accept
any donation at their property at Shirdi.

¶25

7.In view of above discussion, the Civil
Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶26

8.In view of disposal of Civil Application No.
10423 of 2014, connected Civil Application No.10478 of
2014 for intervention does not survive and stands
disposed of.

¶27

[V.K. JADHAV,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶28

snk /2015/JAN15/ca10423.14

Saibaba Foundation, Saipatham, Shirdi, Rahata, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saibaba Foundation, Saipatham, Shirdi, Rahata, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babanrao Raghoji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rameshwar Haribhau Kalambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwan Manikrao Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Magan Shah Education Society Thr Its Trustee Shaikh Shabbir Shaikh Jilani Vs Ruquayya Mohd. Yusuf Ansari

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others