Dismissed

Baban Valiba Parasur (Gurav) and Anr. v. Shri Mahadev Mandir Devasthan through Trustees and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2023WP/14205/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a revision application as time-barred by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's refusal to condone the significant delay since knowledge of the prior trust registration was acquired in 2003.

What the court decided

AI extract

Baban Valiba Parasur (Gurav) and Anr. Vs Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Neeta Sawant 1/3 38-WP-14205-2022 2 November 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 14205 OF 2022

¶5

Shri. Baban Valiba Parasur ...Petitioners (Gurav) and Ors. V/s. Shri. Mahadev Mandir ..Respondents Devasthan Through Trustees and Ors.

¶6

Mr. P.G. Hartalkar i/by. Mr. Tejas P. Hartalkar, for the Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶8

Dated : 2 November 2023.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

In the present petition, Petitioners challenge Judgement and Order dated 3 January 2020 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune rejecting Revision Application No. 118 of 2016 on the ground that the same is time barred. The Joint Charity Commissioner has refused to condone the delay while rejecting the Revision Application.

¶11

It appears that the Petitioners had filed Inquiry Application No. 354 of 1999 for registration of Shri. Mahadev

¶12

Neeta Sawant 2/3 38-WP-14205-2022 2 November 2023

¶13

Mandir Devasthan as a Public Trust. Their application was allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 17 December 2001 by registering the Trust in respect of the land in question. The said order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was challenged by the Respondents in Revision Application No. 23 of 2003 before the Joint Charity Commissioner raising a contention that another Trust was already registered in respect of the property in question in 1960. This is how Petitioners acquired knowledge in the year 2009 about registration of another Trust in respect of the land in question They however failed to take steps to challenge the order registering the said Trust. It must be borne in mind that the registration of the Trust has taken place on 17 July 1960 in Inquiry Application No. 42/1960. Despite acquisition of knowledge of registration of the Trust on 17 July 1960 in 2003 after receipt of notices in Revision Application filed by the Respondents, Petitioners did not take any steps to challenge the order dated 17 July 1960. They filed Revision Application No.118 of 2016 after delay of 56 long years.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioners did not have knowledge of passing of order dated 17 July 1960 which was suppressed by the Respondents. This contention can at the highest be held to be true only till the year 2003. The Respondents relied upon the order dated 17 July 1960 in their Revision Application No. 23/2003. This is how

¶15

Neeta Sawant 3/3 38-WP-14205-2022 2 November 2023

¶16

Petitioners acquired knowledge of order dated 17 July 1960 atleast in the year 2003. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the Petitioners were diligent in exercising their remedies in respect of the order dated 17 July 1960. The Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly refused to condone the delay while dismissing the Revision as time barred. No error can be traced in the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶18

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶19

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.11.04 16:59:59 +0530

Baban Valiba Parasur (Gurav) and Anr. v. Shri Mahadev Mandir Devasthan through Trustees and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Baban Valiba Parasur (Gurav) and Anr. v. Shri Mahadev Mandir Devasthan through Trustees and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuri Krishna Mohite and Ors. Vs the Assistant Registrar C.S. Minakshi Bazar, and Ors.

Nitin Jagannath Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Land Revenue Department and Ors.

Kavis Fashions Private Limited Vs Rupani Spinning Mills Private Limited

Deepika Adeshkumar Agarwal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Deepika Adeshkumar Agarwal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

The Deputy Director of Health Services Vs Smt. Mangal Baburao Ballal