Bombay High Court
Thundiparmbil S/O. Oonnunny ... vs Ambadasji Gulabraoji Rathod And ... on 8 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
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.
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
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.
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.
