Bombay High Court
Sudamati Rameshwar Todkar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:587
27-wp-10832-2015.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2015
1. Sudamati w/o Rameshwar Todkar
2. Jitesh s/o Bhimashankar Todkar
3. Shantiling s/o Utreshwar Todkar
4. Pravin s/o Utreshwar Todkar
5. Jailing s/o Utreshwar Todkar ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Deputy Collector cum Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition), Jayakwadi Project, Beed.
3. Ramnath s/o Ganpatrao Khod
4. Narayan s/o Bhanudas Lonkar ...Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh V
AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. R.R.Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.N. Nagargoje
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 10, 2024
PER COURT:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent
no.3. Nobody was present for respondent no.4.
27-wp-10832-2015.odt
(2)
2. A short question in the case is whether the suit land
bearing Survey No.36 of Village Shidod acquired by the Government
is a property of trust.
3. Respondents nos.3 and 4 had raised the objection before
the Land Acquisition Officer that it is a trust property. The present
petitioners submitted before the Land Acquisition Officer that the
nature of the property acquired had been decided long back, and the
Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the suit field Gut No.36 was
not the trust property. At that time, one of the person interested,
namely Rajaram was contesting the issue before the Assistant Charity
Commissioner that the suit field is a trust property. However, the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, by his order
dated 24.02.1965 passed in Application No.47/1962 and 1696/1962,
held that few house properties were the properties of the trust. The
petitioner, Kachrulal Ratanlal Parikh, appealed the order before the
District Judge. The learned District Judge registered his application as
Application No.12/1970 and, by order dated 25.02.1971 dismissed
the application confirming the order of the Assistant Charity
Commissioner. Against the said order, Kachrulal again approached
the Bombay High Court and filed an appeal bearing No.814/1971.
The Bombay High Court again dismissed the appeal by its order dated
30.08.1978. In such a way, it was concluded that Gut No.36 is not a
trust property.
27-wp-10832-2015.odt
(3)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
entire material was placed before the Land Acquisition Officer. He did
not consider it and erroneously passed the order referring the issue to
the Civil Court. He submits that the impugned order of the Land
Acquisition Officer is illegal and against the facts. He prayed to allow
the petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. A.N. Nagargoje for respondent no.3
has strongly submitted that the said Kachrulal had played a fraud
with the trust. There was a revenue record showing that the suit field
was the trust property. All the trustees were in collusion. Therefore,
the correct facts were not brought before the Assistant Charity
Commissioner. Therefore, some proceedings for the removal of the
trustees were preferred. The trustees who were not acting in the
interest of the trust have been removed. A detailed enquiry is opened
before the Assistant Charity Commissioner to determine whether the
suit land is a trust property. Since the petitioners' title is under the
cloud, a huge compensation of more than Rs.1 Crore should not be
disbursed to the petitioners.
6. The order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the
District Judge and this High Court appear to have not been passed ex-
parte. One of the persons interested in the trust opposed the
contention of Kachrulal, who allegedly claimed the exclusive owner of
the suit field. He was saying it was a trust property. Since the
27-wp-10832-2015.odt
(4)
beginning, there was an objector, and objections were considered.
Then, after enquiry, the Assistant Charity Commissioner recorded the
finding that the suit field Survey No.36 is not the trust property. There
was no record indicating that this property was shown in the schedule
of the properties maintained under the Bombay (now Maharashtra)
Public Trusts Act, 1950. The issue that was raised by respondent no.3
has already attained the finality long back in 1978. The present
petitioners are the purchasers of the suit land. They were in
enjoyment and possession. Prima facie, the petitioners had a strong
case. Though the objection has been raised about their title, earlier
judicial orders support their contention. It has been submitted that
the Assistant Charity Commissioner has opened a fresh enquiry. Let
that enquiry be done. However, the earlier judgments confirming the
status of the suit land as not the land of the trust cannot be ignored.
7. Considering the facts and the earlier orders in toto, this
Court is of the view that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider
the earlier judgments which have attained finality. Prima facie
material was available before it. Hence, he should not have passed the
order impugned before this Court. The law is well settled that once
the issue has been settled, it cannot be ignored. The petitioner should
not be deprived of the right to get the compensation and again prove
his title. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
following order :
27-wp-10832-2015.odt
(5)
ORDER
I) Writ Petition is allowed.
II) The order of the Competent Authority cum Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition), Jayakwadi Project, Beed passed in Case No.2015/
LNQ/LA/Ja.Pra/NH-211/14/12 dated 28.08.2015 is quashed and set
aside.
III) The compensation amount be released in the name of the
petitioners, subject to the result of the enquiry pending before the
Assistant Charity Commissioner.
IV) No order as to costs.
V) At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, this
order is stayed for six weeks.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
Signed by: Syed Mujaheed Naseer
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2024 18:27:24
