1 wp4455.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4455/2015
Thundiparmbil S/o Oonnunny Abraham,
aged about 63 Yrs., Occu. Retired,
R/o Pushpakunj Society, Arni Road,
Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Ambadasji Gulabraoji Rathod,
aged about 65 Yrs., Occu. Cultivation,
R/o Dattapur, Tah. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Smt. Jaswant Kaur Karamsingh,
aged adult, Occu. Household,
R/o 59-A, Rana Pratap Nagar,
Arni Road, Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal.
3. Ku. Rajnish Kaur Karamsingh Bedi,
aged adult, Occu. Service,
R/o Anubhav Apartment, 2nd Floor,
Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune - 38.
4. Bhagatsingh Siddhu,
aged adult, Occu. Cultivation,
R/o Rajurwadi, Tah. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 8.1.2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.Z.
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2018 00:55:12 :::
2 wp4455.15
Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner is admittedly a member of the public trust and had been Joint Secretary of the public trust earlier. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 against the respondents which is dismissed by the impugned order. The Joint Charity Commissioner had framed four charges against the respondents out of which one charge was relating to negligence on the part of the respondents in their capacity as trustees, to take steps for getting recorded immovable property (1 ½ acre land ) donated by Shri Ganpat Kannalwar, as property of the public trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has found that the material placed on record of the proceedings is not sufficient to hold that Shri Ganpat Kannalwar has donated 1 ½ acre land to the trust, regarding which the petitioner made complaint, and which is in possession of the public trust and school building is constructed on that land.
The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been able to explain how the land in question is in possession of the public trust. From the reply, which was filed by the respondent No.2 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, it is clear that respondent No.2 attempted to mislead the Joint Charity Commissioner on ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2018 00:55:12 ::: 3 wp4455.15 the point of donation of land in question by Shri Ganpat Kannalwar to the public trust. Similarly, the reply, which was filed by the respondent No.3 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, shows that the respondent No.3 denied that Shri Ganpat Kanalwar had gifted 1½ acres of land to the public trust.
4. As admittedly the land in question is in possession of the public trust and school building is standing on that land, in my view, it was necessary for the Joint Charity Commissioner to direct an enquiry as to how and when the public trust got / acquired the land in question. The stand taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in the reply filed by them before the Joint Charity Commissioner shows that they have not only failed to discharge their obligation of requesting the Joint Charity Commissioner to direct an enquiry in the matter but they have denied that Shri Ganpat Kannalwar gifted the land to the public trust. If the factum of gift of land in question by Shri Ganpat Kannalwar, as alleged by the petitioner is found to be correct, then the stand of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Joint Charity Commissioner is against the interests of the public trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not examined the matter from this angle and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
5. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2018 00:55:12 :::
4 wp4455.15
(ii) The matter is remanded to the Joint Charity Commissioner,
Amravati for deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 afresh.
(iii) The petitioner and the respondents shall appear before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 5th March, 2018 at 11 a.m. and abide by further orders / instructions in the matter.
(iv) The learned Joint Charity Commissioner shall take appropriate steps in the matter considering the observations recorded in this judgment and dispose the proceedings till 29th September, 2018.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2018 00:55:12 :::