The High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a charity trust's sale of land to an existing lessee. The court held the petitioner offered no valid counter-bid, the sale price beat the approved valuation, and the sale was lawful and final.
Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 628 of 2010
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
| ================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
======== - |
|---|---|
| 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | - |
| 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
- |
| 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ================================================ |
- ======== |
VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL
Versus
1. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST
2. RAJESHBHAI NARANBHAI BHAYANI
3. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER
========================================================
Appearance :
MR AMIT V THAKKAR(3073) for the Appellant
MR MI MERCHANT(479) for the Respondent No. 1.1
MR RR MARSHALL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Respondent No. 2
Page 1 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No. 3
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date :07/07/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
Page 2 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
the price of the land in question of Rs.11,21,000/- and, therefore, neither the Charity Commissioner was justified in granting the sale permission nor the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were justified in rejecting his case and hence, he has continued with this Letters Patent Appeal in the present case.
of series of Affidavits filed by Respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bhayani with site photographs that the said land stood now sold to over more than 300 persons in different plots and they have raised their construction of Residential Houses etc. on the said land but, still, the Appellant wants it to be restored back to him on the ruse that he was ready to offer 25% more and, therefore, why it has been allowed to be sold at the given price to the Respondent No.2 – Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bhayani.
Page 3 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
The lack of bona fides and prevalence of greed in the background is more than apparent.
“7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that at the time when the application seeking permission of the competent authority to sell the land in question was made by the sole trustee – (Late) Smt. Kantaben Zaverilal Joshi , the said land had already been given on a five year lease to respondent no.2 for cutting the grass, at an annual rent of Rs.900/-, in order to protect the land from encroachment. The respondent no.2 was possessing the said land as a tenant under a lease agreement entered into between the sole trustee and respondent no.2. It is a fact situation that the said lease document was executed on a stamp paper of inadequate value and that it was also not registered . On the basis of such a document, respondent no.2 could never have got any right established in any Court of law since the said document would have been inadmissible in evidence. At the best, respondent no.2 could have got the right of a licensee established but, in that case also, the Trust could have got back possession of the said land at the end of five years. However, the fact remains that at the
Page 4 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
relevant time, the disputed land was in the possession of respondent no.2 in the capacity of a tenant .
8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.2 had expressed his willingness to purchase the land in question at the price of Rs.11,21,000/- as against the Government approved Valuer's price valuation of Rs.10,80,000/- . The petitioner had not given or specified the exact amount at which he was ready to purchased the disputed land. His statement that he was willing to pay 25% more than the negotiated price could not be considered to be a valid offer, particularly, when he did not take any step to give an effective offer, along with the requisite deposit, during the period between 15.10.1998 and 15.04.1999 . It is also required to be noted that the petitioner had not raised any objection that the market price valuation , given in the Government approved valuer's Report, is not proper or that it is low, etc. In other words, the valuation as fixed by the Government approved valuer was not challenged by the petitioner. Thus, when no challenge was put forward by the petitioner/objector regarding the valuation of the land and when no sale instances or other evidence or valuation report pointing to the fair market price significantly higher than what was assessed by the Government approved Valuer, the respondent no.3 - authority was justified in accepting the fair market value of the land on the basis of the Valuation Report.
9. Keeping in mind the fact that respondent no.2 was possessing the disputed land in the capacity of a 'tenant' at the relevant time and that he had quoted a price much
Page 5 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
higher than the Government approved Valuer's price , which had remained unchallenged coupled with the fact that the petitioner had not taken any steps to give any effective offer, along with the requisite deposit, during the period between 15.10.1998 and 15.04.1999, the respondent no.3 - authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was compelling necessity for alienating the disputed land, particularly, when the sole trustee was an elderly lady aged about 80 years and there was every possibility that the disputed land would have been encroached upon. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though being a good law, will not apply to the facts of the case on hand, in view of the discussion made herein above.
10. Looking to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Thakorebhai Gangaram v. Ramanlal Maganlal Reshamwala , 1993 (1) G.L.H. 473 , wherein, it has been held that the primary power to grant sanction is vested by the Legislature advisedly in the Charity Commissioner and that the Charity Commissioner should exercise such power justly and fairly and after taking into consideration the relevant factors. Once such sanction is granted, it would be unjust to upset such sanction in appeal u/s. 36(3) on grounds which do not materially affect the satisfaction reached by the Charity Commissioner.
11. While upholding the decision of the authority below, I also agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Arunodaya Prefab's case (supra) that it is not open to the
Page 6 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Charity Commissioner to consider uninvited offers from third parties except for ascertaining the market price of the property and that the Charity Commissioner cannot sell or require the trustees to sell the property to such third parties. If the Charity Commissioner considers the sale proposed by the trustees adverse to the interests of the trust, he could only decline sanction. The facts of the present case are almost similarly situated. I concur with the view adopted by the Bombay High Court in the said decision.
12. In view of the above discussion, the concurrent findings arrived at by the authority / Tribunal below and the settled law on the subject, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in law or on facts by dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. I also find that the respondent no.3-authority has exercised the power to accord sanction in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Act and that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by him while doing so . Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
Revenue Tribunal, the Petitioner filed Special Civil Application
Page 7 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
No. 1353 of 2000 which came to be dismissed by another learned Single Judge of this Court ( Coram : M.R. Calla, J. ), coming down heavily on the bona fides or locus standi of the Petitioner in the following manner :
“5. This Court finds that apart from the question as to what is the bonafide locus standi of the present petitioner to raise the objections in this case , it appears from the reading of the order passed by the Charity Commissioner that he has addressed himself to all these questions and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Charity Commissioner prima facie suffers from any illegality or infirmity. This authority is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner in the facts of present case.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Trust has cited the case of Prithvi Builders v. Manekchowk Khoda Dhor Panjarapole Sanstha , reported in 1996 (2) GLH 615 wherein the court has observed that normally in the matter of selling out properties of the Trust, the Trustees or the Charity Commissioner are to act in the best interest of the Trust and that ordinarily reflects when the best available price is secured for the property to be sold, but at the same time, it could not be a case of single golden scale criteria that any time or every time a higher offer comes one should require the Authority to postpone the process, which had already commenced . It has to be brought to a logical end.
Page 8 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Therefore the petitioner may have stated in his objections that he was prepared to pay more than 25% of the price over and above the price at which the property was proposed to be sold out by respondent No.1 . But merely because such a statement was made, it cannot be said that the same was an effective offer . No deposits had been offered or made and the other necessary requirements with regard to the deposit of the earnest money etc.had also not been held out. In any case, the Joint Charity Commissioner has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects as well as the objections of the petitioner and taking into consideration the entirety of the facts, it cannot be said that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was wrong in vacating the ex parte order . I do not find any substance in this Special Civil Application. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Single Judge also came to be dismissed, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No. 89 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No. 1353 of 2000 by the Division Bench of this Court ( Coram : D.M.Dharmadhikari, CJ & B.C. Patel,J. ) by a short order, which is also quoted below :
Page 9 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
“Learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, vacating the ex-parte order of stay. We also do not find any ground to take a different view. Learned counsel submits that, if the sale deed is executed with the proposed purchaser the appeal would become infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant insisted that this Court should direct that the appeal should be heard expeditiously and within a stipulated time. We reject the appeal, but expect the Tribunal to expeditiously decide the pending appeal. We also make it clear that the pending appeal shall be decided by the Tribunal without influenced by any observations made by this Court while rejecting this appeal. The permission to sell granted shall naturally be subject to the result of the pending appeal. No order on civil application. No order as to costs.
Sd/Sd/(D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. ) ( B. C. Patel, J )”
Page 10 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Charity Commissioner as he was already Tenant / Lessee on the same land for last 5 years, the land was duly sold to him for full consideration of Rs.11,21,000/- and, therefore, doubting the motive of the Petitioner to assail the said sale, the Respondent filed the said Affidavit. In the first Affidavit itself dated September, 2004 , the said Respondent had stated in Para.4 that the Petitioner along with his Advocate friends – Mr.Bhavesh C. Mehta and Mr.S.I. Patel, Advocate were in the habit of assailing all the sales of Public Trust and in Para.5, it is clearly stated that in another similar challenge, on a compromise with the purchaser, said Mr.Bhavesh C. Mehta received a sum of Rs.6 lakhs . When the Trustees of one Bhartiya Vidhya Manal Trust Kamrej had to enter into the said settlement with him.
Page 11 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Petitioner was offering 25% more of the price, the Charity Commissioner ought not to have granted such sale permission. On the issue of sale already having taken place, Mr.Amit Thakkar, learned counsel, submitted that it was directed to remain subject to pendency of this Appeal under the interim order of this Court and, therefore, if the order of Charity Commissioner goes, the sales in favour of other persons – third parties have to be set aside.
| Sr. | Mode of Citation | N | ame of Party |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | |||
| 1. | 2019 (17) SCC 419, | Shri Am | badevi Sanstha and |
| Para : 10 to 14, 23 & 24 | Othes Commis |
v. Joint Charity sioner and Others. |
|
| 2. | 2018 (14) SCC 761 | Cyrus | Rustom Patel v. |
| Para : 16 to 36 | Charity Mahara |
Commissioner, shtra State and |
|
| Others. | |||
| 3. | 2007 SCC Online Bom 124 | Sailesh | Developers and |
| Another | v. Joint Charity |
Page 12 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
| 2007 (3) Mah LJ 717 Para : 27 to 30 |
Commissioner, Maharashtra and Others. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4. | 2013 (11) SCC 531 | Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and |
| Para : 50 to 54 | Others v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Others. |
|
| 5. | 2001 (5) SCC 305 Para : 9 |
Mehrwan Homi Irani and Another v. Charity Commissioner, Bombay and Others. |
| 6. | 1986 (3) SCC 91 Para : 10 |
Chenchu Rami Reddy and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others. |
Page 13 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Rs.11,21,000/- . Therefore, not only the valuation was available but price realized was more than the valuation by an Approved Valuer. There is no mala fides alleged against the Charity Commissioner as such in the present case.
Page 14 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and held that it 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 and protection of the trust. In the present case before us, the vague offer given by the Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, that he could pay 25% more than the price offered by the Respondent, is neither here nor there. He never deposited 25% more with the Charity Commissioner and, therefore, such vague offer without any earnest money or deposit of the price was absolutely meaningless. The sum of Rs.5 lakhs now deposited under the interim order of the Court to make the sale subject to the litigation, cannot be stated to be price offered by the Petitioner at the time of purchase of the property. After 20 years now, the sale made by Registered Sale Deed dated 17.2.2001 , cannot be up-set on the basis of such vague offer and wild allegations against the Respondents. A sale to the existing lessee at a price higher than approved by Valuer’s valuation is prima facie not only valid and acceptable, but the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of Respondent No.2 and now further sales made to over 300 persons cannot be set
Page 15 of 16
C/LPA/628/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 7/7/2021 VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL V/s. JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST & Others
aside on such meritless litigation for motivated purposes at the instance of a group of lawyers and that too without impleading all of them nor there is any valid ground to do so. It is better that the lawyers limit their activities to their profession rather than land dealings in this manner. We would not like to comment any further on this and suffice it to say that the present litigation is found to be without merit in law and without bona fides and equity.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)
(B.N. KARIA, J)
FURTHER ORDER
Mr. Amit Thakkar, learned counsel, after the pronouncement of the Judgement, submits that Rs.5 Lakhs was deposited vide Interim Order of the learned Single Judge in the Order impugned before us, may be ordered to be refunded as the same is deposited in the Registry of this Court. Upon proper application for refund and upon verification of the said fact, the Registry may take steps to refund the said amount of the Appellant after obtaining due Acknowledgment of the same and in accordance with Rules.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)
(B.N. KARIA, J)
(V.J.SATWARA)
Page 16 of 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Charity Commissioner acted illegally in sanctioning the sale of trust land to an existing lessee without inviting public offers.
Whether a vague offer to pay 25% more without deposit constitutes a valid counter-offer justifying reinstatement of the land.
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition has merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thakorebhai Gangaram v. Ramanlal Maganlal ReshamwalaExplained¶67
1993 (1) G.L.H. 473
Prithvi Builders v. Manekchowk Khoda Dhor Panjarapole SansthaReferred¶66
1996 (2) GLH 615
Arunodaya Prefab's caseFollowed¶69
1996 (2) GLH 615
Shri Ambadevi Sanstha and Others v. Joint Charity Commissioner and OthersDistinguished¶93
(2019) 17 SCC 419 · Who else cites this
Cyrus Rustom Patel v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and OthersDistinguished¶95
(2018) 14 SCC 761 · Who else cites this
Sailesh Developers and Another v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra and OthersDistinguished¶97
2007 (3) Mah LJ 717
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Others v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and OthersDistinguished¶89
2013 (11) SCC 531 · Who else cites this
Mehrwan Homi Irani and Another v. Charity Commissioner, Bombay and OthersDistinguished¶91
2001 (5) SCC 305 · Who else cites this
Chenchu Rami Reddy and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and OthersDistinguished¶92
1986 (3) SCC 91 · Who else cites this
VIJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL
JANGLESHWAR MAHADEV TRUST
RAJESHBHAI NARANBHAI BHAYANI
JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER
VINEET KOTHARI
B.N. KARIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
