Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai Bhagwandas Sadhu vs Charity Commissioner Gujarat on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/848/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 848 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 848 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 848 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 848 of 2019
================================================================
ARVINDBHAI BHAGWANDAS SADHU & ORS.
Versus
CHARITY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1,4.1,4.2,4.3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 4
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3,4.1,4.2,4.3
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Defendant(s) No. 1,2
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR SAURABH M PATEL(5019) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present appeal is field by the deceased appellant No.1, who was a priest of the temple run by the Trust - Ramji Mandir Trust against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in Civil Misc. Application No.233 of 2015, whereby, the said application came to be rejected and the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Suo Moto Revision Applications No. 4 of 2011 and No.5 of 2011 came to be upheld.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, Ramji Mandir Shilaj, A/558/Ahmedabad was a Registered Public Trust. That, in Further Inquiry No. 1001/86 vide order dated Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/848/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined 26/05/1992 the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner declared the land situated at Survey No. 759 to be the aforesaid trust property. Against this order the present appellant preferred a Revision Application No. 24/2009 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. But despite the pendency of the said revision application, the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner proceeded with the proceedings of change report No.350/2007 and 879/2010 and passed the common order dated 22/11/2010 declaring the property situated at Survey No.759 not to be the trust property. That, the Joint Charity Commissioner vide his suo moto powers of revision under the provisions of Section 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act summoned the record and proceedings of the aforesaid change reports and after summoning and hearing the interested parties passed the order under challenge. That, the Joint Charity Commissioner while passing the impugned order has observed that the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner dated 22/11/2010 was quite illegal, improper and without application of legal mind. It was observed by the learned Charity Commissioner that once the order passed in the Further Inquiry No.1001 of 1986 by the then Deputy Charity Commissioner was under challenge before the Joint Charity Commissioner by way of revision application, he should not have taken in hand the proceedings of the above mentioned change reports. Holding such the learned Joint Charity Commissioner passed the order dated 30/09/2015, which was challenged before the learned 8 th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur by way of filing Civil Misc. Application No.233 of 2015, whereby, the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 29.10.2018 Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/848/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined and the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Suo Moto Revision Applications No. 4 of 2011 and No.5 of 2011 came to be upheld.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned 8 th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, the appellant has filed the present First Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the appellants and the Trust, he seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal as the appellants have forego their rights in the subject parcel of land owned by the Trust, which is objected by learned advocate Mr. Salil Thakore on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the original appellant.
5. Mr. Salil Thakore, learned advocate on record for the applicant in civil application (For Joining Party), has emphasizedly submitted that the applicant has purchased the subject parcel of land, owned by the Trust, through power of attorney holder of the appellant priest of the Ramji Temple.
6. It appears that the said power of attorney was not registered and the original appellant entered into settlement with the temple Trust and had foregone his right over the land in question. Pending the present proceedings, after the death of the original appellant, even his legal heirs also entered into Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/848/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined settlement with the temple Trust. It is also to be noted herein that, the applicant in civil application (For Joining Party) was not a party before the Civil Court and unless and until her right is decided by the competent Civil Court, she cannot be joined as party in the present proceedings filed by and between the appellant Priest and the Trustees. Moreover, if that priest has no right over the subject parcel of land, the said land in question cannot be sold by the power of attorney holder of the priest. All these facts are required to be established before the Civil Court and it cannot be decided in the present proceedings and hence, the application for joining party is hereby rejected and the applicant cannot object the withdrawal of the present proceedings by the appellants.
7. The objection is turned down. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the present appeal. In the result, the present appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
8. It is open for the applicant of civil application (For Joining Party) to file appropriate proceedings to establish her right, since the same is not yet decided by this Court.
9. In view of the disposal of the main First Appeal, the connected civil applications also stand disposed of.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:04:18 IST 2025