Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 124 Chatt

                                1

                                                                 AFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

               Writ Petition (C) No.3633 of 2021

                Order Reserved on 11/11/2022

                Order Passed on     06/01/2023

1. Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust, through its
   Trustee Shri Kamal Bajaj, son of Late Ramniwas Bajaj, R/o Bajaj
   Bhawan, Marwadi Line, Lajpat Rai Nagar, Khaparganj, Bilaspur,
   Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Chirag Bajaj, S/o Shri Kamal Bajaj, aged about 33 years, R/o
   Bajaj Bhawan, Marwadi Line, Lajpat Rai Nagar, Khaparganj,
   Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Ananya Bajaj, S/o Shri Govind Bajaj, aged about 32 years, R/o
   Bajaj Bhawan, Marwadi Line, Lajpat Rai Nagar, Khaparganj,
   Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                                      ---- Petitioners

                                Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Registrar, Public Trust-cum- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
   Bilaspur.

3. Atul Bajaj, S/o Late Shankar Lal Bajaj, R/o Khaparganj, Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.

4. Santosh Bajaj, S/o Late Amolakchand Bajaj, R/o Ainthapali
   Chowk, Sambalpur Odhisha.

5. Amit Bajaj, S/o Late Chandrakumar Bajaj, R/o 148, New
   Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-10 (Maharashtra)

6. Sunit Bajaj, S/o Late Sharad Kumar Bajaj, R/o House No. 301,
   Krishna    Kiran   Apartment,   Vardhman     Nagar,  Nagpur
   (Maharashtra).

                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioners                    :       Mr. B.P.Sharma, Ms. Anuja
                                           Sharma, Ms. Sameeksha Gupta
                                           and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates.
For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 :           Mr. Avinash K. Mishra,
                                           Government Advocate.
For Respondents No.3 to 6          :       Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava,
                                           Advocate.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                               CAV ORDER

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the Petitioners under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following

reliefs:

1.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do

issue calling for the records pertaining to the case of the

Petitioners from the Respondents for its kind perusal.

1.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do

issue quashing the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by

Respondent Registrar and in effect allow the application of

Petitioners filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951.

1.3 Cost of the proceedings.

1.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and

just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. According to the pleadings of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1 is a

Charitable Trust and is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.107/3

& 108/3 area 0.40 & 0.922 hectares, total area 0.962 hectares,

situated at adjacent to J.P.Verma College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur.

The said land is situated on main road and because of its location

and recent construction of over bridge etc./widening of road, the

boundary wall protecting the said property has been demolished

and certain part of the said property is exposed to public. The said

property during last several years has not fetched any income

which otherwise would have been fetched, therefore, Petitioner

No.1-trust has taken a decision on 20.06.2019 of selling the said

property and on receipt of consideration, to purchase property in

any rural area prospectively around 10 acres so that arrangement

may be made for education and health of weaker section of society

and also to construct school, college and hospital. Taking into

consideration the above aspects of matter and other relevant

aspects, an application under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public

Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951') has been filed by the

Petitioners and thereafter certain amendments have also been

incorporated in the said application. Respondent No. 2 i.e.

Registrar, Public Trust followed the unusual procedure by calling

for a report from the Tahsildar and also from the Principal of JP

Verma Government Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur which is

altogether irrelevant for the purpose of decision of application filed

under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 and vide impugned order dated

05.08.2021, Respondent No. 2 the Registrar, Public Trust rejected

the application filed by the Petitioners. Hence, the instant petition.

3. In their reply and rejoinder, Respondents No.3, 4, 5 & 6 stated that

the Petitioners No.2 & 3 are neither the trustees under the

provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951 nor could they

have been nominated under the terms of trust deed, therefore, they

have no locus to move the subject application as well as the instant

petition. With regard to Kamal Bajaj, as per terms of the trust deed,

he could have been nominated as one of the trustees together with

the Respondents. Neither the Respondents have authorized nor has

any resolution been passed in favour of Kamal Bajaj to act nor has

he been nominated as Chairman of the trust and, therefore, his

representation as chairman of the trust is illegal and unauthorized.

The land in question were purchased in the name of trust way back

in the year 1958. In the year 1972, the trust had decided to donate

the land in question along with the other land to the management

who was running the college, namely, 'Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar

Lal College' (for short 'SBR College'). The deed of transfer was

executed and all the land were transferred in the name of State.

Due to some inadvertence, the revenue records could not be

corrected and the present land remains in the name of trust in the

revenue records. By taking advantage of this omission, some

persons including the Petitioners planned to grab this property in

the name of trust and sell it out. The land is the part of a land

which has been donated to the management of SBR College in the

year 1972. This land is situated just in-front side of the college and

only by this land there is access to the college. This land is being

used as play ground and for other social activities by the College

since last 50 years. With regard to the resolution dated 20.06.2019,

it has been fraudulently passed by the unauthorized persons. Since

1944 to 2019 there was no change in the name of the trustees and

suddenly in the year 2019, an application was moved to change the

Chairman and thereafter suddenly the trust passed a resolution for

selling out the land. Even before obtaining permission, advance

money of Rs.34,00,000/- was also received by the Chairman and

subsequently he transferred it in his own account. As the land is

being used by the College as playground and for other social

activities, permission to sell it out would prejudicially affect the

functioning of the College. It is further stated that the application

under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 has been moved by the

Petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur who has

acted as 'Registrar of Public Trust' by virtue of the work alloted by

the Collector under the work distribution memo i.e. Annexure R-

3/6. As contained in Section 34-A of the Act of 1951, the Registrar

may, by order in writing, delegate his powers to any revenue officer

of his district not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer. But,

delegation on the basis of work distribution memo is not

permissible which is contrary to the mandate of Section 34-A of the

Act of 1951.

4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not filed reply.

5. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners

referred to the provisions of Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (2) of the Act of

1951 and stated that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid

provisions, it is clear that the Registrar is obliged to grant

permission unless there is material that the sale proposal is

prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The Counsel further

referred to Clause 3 (b) & (c) of the trust deed i.e. Annexure P-2.

Further, referring to the object of the trust deed (Annexure P-2), it

is submitted by Mr.B.P. Sharma that the object of the Petitioner

trust is also to establish, maintain, and grant aid to hospitals,

medical schools or college and other institutions for the relief of

poor, sick and distressed persons of the country, to grant aid or

relief on the occasion of earthquakes, floods and famines, to

establish temple and other places of pilgrimage and public worship

and to provide daily perpetual for the public. Thus, the object of the

Petitioner trust is clear and when a decision with respect to sell off

said property has been taken by the Petitioner trust in its meeting

dated 20.06.2019, the Registrar was obliged to give credence to said

proposal. There is nothing by which it can be said that the said

proposal is prejudicial to the interests of public trust. Before the

Registrar, the witnesses have also been examined, but, none of

them have stated anything against the Petitioners by which it can

be proved that the Petitioners are acting prejudicially to the

interests of public trust. The application of the Petitioners has been

rejected only on the ground that since the property is being used as

playground by the students of JP Verma Government Arts and

Commerce College for last 45-50 years, no useful purpose will be

served in selling the land. The above finding of the Registrar

regarding this aspect of the matter is contrary to intent of Section

14 of the Act of 1951. Merely on this ground, it can not be said that

the sale of said property is prejudicial to the interests of the public

trust. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Registrar is not

in accordance with law. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sharma on

Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow Vs. Sub Divisional

Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts, 2022 SCC OnLine SC

104.

6. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondents No.3 to 6 submitted that there is serious dispute

between the Petitioners and these Respondents with regard to their

nominations as trustees in the trust. Since Petitioners No.2 & 3 are

neither the trustees under the provisions of the Act of 1951 nor

could they have been nominated under the terms of the trust deed,

therefore, they have no locus to file such application under Section

14 of the Act of 1951 or to file the instant petition before this Court.

Mr. Shrivastava referring to Section 3 of the Act of 1951 and

submitted that as contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1951, the

Collector shall be the Registrar of the Public Trust. Further

referring to Section 34-A of the Act of 1951, it was argued by Mr.

Shrivatava that though the Registrar have power to delegate his

powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his

district not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, in this case

delegation has been made by the Collector and not by the Registrar,

Public Trusts by way of work distribution memo only. Relying the

judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shri Deo

Parasnathji Mousuna Ghanshyam Budhu Singhai Vs.

Kanhaiyalal Komal Chand 1972 MPLJ 206 and the judgment

passed by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court passed

in MP No.1209/1991 [Smt. Buddhibai Vs. Registrar Public Trust-

cum-SDO & others], it was submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that

unless and until a separate notification under Section 34-A of the

Act 1951 is issued, the powers of the Registrar can not be delegated

to the Sub-Divisional Officer by work distribution memo and such

SDO had no jurisdiction to perform his duties as the Registrar,

Public Trusts. It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the

above judgments which have been passed by the parent High Court

i.e. Madhya Pradesh High Court prior to recognition that is prior to

establishment of this High Court have binding effect to this Court.

In this regard, reliance was placed by Mr. Shrivastava on State of

Gujarat Vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi, AIR 1962 Gujarat

128. Thus, it was argued by Mr. Shrivastava that the judgments

passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court are required to be

followed by this Court and if this Court considers it otherwise, the

only course available to this Court is to refer the matter to Hon'ble

The Chief Justice for constituting the larger Bench for

reconsideration of the issue in terms of Rules 32 & 33 of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondents No.1 & 2

opposes the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners on the

basis of the material available and submitted that the Registrar,

Public Trust rightly rejected the application under Section 14 of the

Act of 1951.

8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, with utmost

circumspection, perused the impugned order passed by the

Registrar, also perused the reply and rejoinder filed by the parties

and other documents available.

9. Before dealing with the issue, it would be appropriate to refer to

some relevant provisions of the Act of 1951 which read as under:

"Section 3 : Registrar of public trusts: (1) The [Collector] shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust, the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub- section (3) of Section 4 is situated in his district.

(2) The Registrar shall maintain a register of public trusts, and such other books and registers and in such form as may be prescribed.

Section 14 : Previous sanction of Registrar, in cases of sale, etc., of property belonging to a public trust : (1) Subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court :

(a) no sale, mortgage, exchange or gift of any immovable property; and

(b) no lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-

agricultural land or building;

belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar

(2) The Registrar shall not refuse his sanction in respect of any transaction specified in sub-section (1) unless such transaction will, in this opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust.

Section 34-A : Delegation of powers by Registrar : Subject to the provisions of this Act and to such restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed, the Registrar may, by order in writing delegate all or any of his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer."

10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant

clauses of the trust deed(Annexure P-2), which read as under:

"Clause 3 : (b) To grant aid, to support, establish and maintain persons, societies and institutions including Schools, Colleges for promotion of Science, Literature, fine arts, education diffusion of useful knowledge and other objects and purposes for the diffusion, growth and advancement of education and culture, of the general public.

(c) To establish, maintain, and grant aid to hospitals, medical schools or colleges and other institutions for the relief of the poor, sick and distressed persons in the country.

Clause 9 : (a) To manage the Trust Properties and

to do all acts necessary for the preservation, maintenance and management of the Trust Estate and its affairs,

(b) From time to time to vary the investments representing the trust properties or any part thereof or the income of the same as the Trustees may think fit and proper with full power and liberty to sell or otherwise deal with the corpus of the Trust properties.

(c) To invest the income of the Trust properties not immediately required for the objects and purposes of the Trust.

(d) The Trustees will be at liberty to invest and keep invested the Trust funds properties whether representing the corpus or income in such investments as they in their absolute discretion shall think fit and proper and in particular with full liberty and power to them to invest and keep invested the same either in purchase of immovable property or by granting loan on the security of immovable property or with any Firm or Company or in any property or any shares or debentures in any Company notwithstanding that any of the Trustees may be interested therein irrespective of the restrictions provided by the Indian Trustees Act or any other Act or Acts, Law or Laws in Force in British India or in any Indian States or by any Authorities or Government regarding the Powers of the Trustees to invest Trust Moneys or Trust properties."

11. There is no dispute on the point that Petitioner No.1 Shiv Bhagwan

Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust is registered under the

Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 on 13.07.1944. From perusal

of the object of the trust deed, it is clear that object of the trust is

also to establish and maintain schools, colleges and other

institutions for the relief of poor and distressed persons. Clause 9 of

the trust deed empowers the trustees and give them liberty to sell

or otherwise deal with the corpus of the trust properties. In this

case, resolution of the trust dated 20.06.2019 shows that the

meeting was held on 20.06.2019 and the resolution was passed to

sell the land in question total area 2.38 acres on the ground that

the subject land is vacant since the date of purchase and the trust

is paying the government taxes, audit fee and other expenditure for

a long time and there is no income of the trust for several years and

some portion of the land has been encroached by some persons. It

was also mentioned that due to nonavailability of funds, it is not

possible for the trust to maintain the financial issues smoothly.

12. On the basis of said resolution, application (Annexure P-3) under

Section 14 of the Act of 1951 was filed by the Petitioners before the

Registrar. In the said application it was mentioned that back

portion of the college property has been encroached by some

persons and in near future there is a possibility of encroachment on

the disputed land. It was further mentioned in the application that

after selling the land in question, for fulfilling the object of the

trust, consideration amount of the sale will be used for purchasing

10 acres of land in rural area wherein the trust will construct

school, college, hospital etc. for the welfare of poor and distressed

persons of the country.

13. From a bare perusal of the application, it is clear mentioned that for

fulfilling the object of the trust like to construct school, college etc.

land in question has to be sold. The said application has been

rejected only on the ground that 'since the property belonging to the

Petitioners is being used as playground by the students of J.P.

Verma College for the last 45-50 years and no useful purpose will

be is served in selling the property'.

14. In Parsi Zoroastrian case (Supra), the Supreme Court held as

under:

"22. As can be seen by Section 14(1), previous sanction of the Registrar of public trusts is a precondition, for the (a) "sale, mortgage, exchange of gift of any immovable property" or (b) "lease for a period of exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or building." If Section 14(1) had stopped there, the embargo on alienation of the types enumerated in the provision (sale, gift, exchange, mortgage etc., or long-term lease(s) of agricultural or non-agricultural properties) i.e., obtaining previous sanction, could well have meant that the Registrar's role was conceivably intrusive. However, the provisions of Section 14(1) and the power conferred on the Registrar under it, are controlled by Section 14(2) which states that the Registrar "shall not refuse his

sanction" unless in his opinion the alienation, or transfer is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The clear reference in Section 14(2) is to power exercisable under Section 14(1). The controlling expression in Section 14(1) significantly, is that previous sanction in respect of the two situations (i.e., alluded in clauses (a) and (b)) is " subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court." This controlling or, rather opening words, clearly indicate that the grant or refusal of sanction by the Registrar have to be based on either "the directions in the instrument of trust", or "any direction given under this (i.e., M.P. Public Trusts Act) or any other law by any Court". The discretion thus, is relatable to directions in the trust document, or any provision of the Act, or any other law as ordered (or directed) by any Court. Therefore, the Registrar, is not empowered to read into it her own notions of what is beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly stipulates so, or any specific provisions of the trust document."

15. As observed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the grant or

refusal of the sanction by the Registrar has to be based on either

the directions in the instrument of trust or any directions given

under the Act of 1951 or any other law by any Court and the

Registrar is not empowered to read into his own notions of what is

beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be

specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly

stipulates so, or any specific provisions of the trust document.

16. The case in hand, the trust deed clearly empowers the trustees to

sell the trust properties for fulfilling the object of the trust. The

application (Annexure P-3) also clearly reflects the object of sale of

the land in dispute. It is clearly mentioned in that application that

after selling of the property, from its consideration amount, 10

acres of land will be purchased in rural area for construction of

school, college, hospitals etc. despite the Registrar has rejected the

application for the reason that the land in question is being used as

playground by the students of JP Verma College for the last 45-50

years, which does not appear to be proper. Therefore, the impugned

order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust rejecting the application

filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 is not sustainable.

17. It was an argument of Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned

Counsel for Respondents No.3 to 6 that the land in question was

already transferred in the name of the State in the year 1972.

Perusal of the reply of these Respondents to the application filed

under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 before the Registrar clearly

shows that they have admitted the fact that the subject land is the

trust property (paragraph 8 of the reply). Apart from that these

Respondents have not produced any document to show that the

subject land has been duly transferred to the State Government

and in the revenue record also, name of the State has been

mutated. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the said

argument raised by Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava.

18. It was also argued on behalf of Respondents No.3 to 6 that the

Petitioners No.2 & 3 are neither trustees under the provisions of the

Act of 1951 nor could they have been nominated under the terms of

the trust deed. As this question is not the subject matter of the

instant petition and as submitted by Mr. Shrivastava a litigation is

already pending before the Civil Court in this regard, it would not

be necessary to deal with the issue in the instant petition.

19. Further contention of Mr. Shrivastava was that in this case the

order of delegation of powers under Section 34-A of the Act of 1951

has been passed by the Collector through a simple work

distribution memo and he alloted the work to the SDO is contrary

to the mandate of Section 34-A of the Act of 1951. Relying upon the

aforesaid judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was prayed

by Mr. Shrivastava that the matter may be remanded back to the

Collector i.e. Registrar of public trust to consider the matter afresh.

20. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that before the

Registrar, Respondents No.3 to 6 were made party as

Respondents/Objectors. The application under Section 14 of the

Act of 1951 was filed on 27.09.2019. Later on, the application was

amended. Before the Registrar, Public Trust, these Respondents

appeared through their Counsel. The Registrar, during the

proceedings, recorded the evidence and collected the reports from

Tahsildar and finally passed his order on 05.08.2021. During the

entire proceedings, these Respondents have not made any

objections before the Registrar with regard to the delegation of

power through work distribution memo by the Collector. After

passing of the said order also, they kept mum. When the said order

is challenged by the Petitioners in the instant petition, then, for the

first time, these Respondents raised their objections in this regard

and prayed to remand the matter to the Collector.

21. Learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay in Bharti

Vidhyapeeth, Pune Vs. Ulka Pradeep Adhav, 2019 SCC OnLine

Bom 4692, observed that the Respondent can not seek relief in the

writ proceedings instituted by the Petitioner. Since, the challenge

has not been made by the person aggrieved, Court is not inclined to

entertain the same. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment

is reproduced hereunder:-

"20. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that respondent Nos.3 and 3 are the persons who can be construed to be aggrieved in law vis-a-vis the decision of the School Tribunal and not the school or its Headmaster/Headmistress. Merely filing affidavit by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.601 and 873 of 2019 supporting the case of the petitioners would not confer locus on the petitioners. It is trite that a respondent cannot seek relief in the writ proceedings instituted by the petitioner. Since the challenge has not been made by the person aggrieved, Court is not inclined to entertain the same."

22. In case of Jai Singh Vs. Secretary, Law and Judicial, ILR (2008)

II Delhi 1166, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court

observed as under:

"16. Learned Law Secretary while disposing of the

appeal by the impugned Order dated 9th January, 1978 has observed that in the counter affidavit which was filed in Writ Petition No.641-D/63, legal representatives of Mr. Govardhan Singh had also asked for possession of the remaining land. I have examined the counter affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition on behalf of the private respondents herein but find that there is no such averment. No prayer was made in the said counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is not stated that the impugned Order dated 19.04.1963 to the extent that the applicants therein were refused relief with respect to any land beyond the said 11 bigha and 12 biswas, was bad and illegal. There are no such allegations in the affidavit nor any grounds of challenge were raised. The private respondents in the written submissions have rightly pointed out that prior to the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in 1976 there was no provision for filing of cross objections by respondents who were not aggrieved by a decree. As observed by the Supreme Court in Banarsi V. Ramphal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 a party in whose favour a decree stands in entirety is neither required, nor entitled to file cross objections, even if a finding has been given on a particular aspect/issue against the said party. Cross objections or a cross appeal is required to be filed where a decree is partly in favour of one party and partly in favour of another. In case Mr. Govardhan Singh was aggrieved by the Order dated 19.04.1963, partly dismissing the appeal, he should have filed a writ petition challenging the said order to that extent. Mr. Govardhan Singh and after his death the private respondents kept quite and accepted the said order. The Order rejecting the appeal in part became final

and binding. It was not the intention of the Writ Court to set aside the findings of the Financial Commissioner which Mr. Govardhan Singh had accepted."

23. I also agree with the above observations made by learned Single

Judges of High Court of Bombay and Delhi High Court. Thus, in

light of the above observations, in my considered view also,

Respondents No.3 to 6 can not seek any relief in the present writ

petition, which is instituted by the Petitioners.

24. From perusal of the documents and photographs annexed with the

petition, reply and rejoinder, it appears that the trust property,

which is to be sold, is in an open area on the main road. It also

appears that in the right portion of the said property, there is a way

to go to the college and there is also a parking area for two-wheelers

for students of the college. As the college is a P.G. College for Arts

and Commerce students, therefore, there can be more than one

thousand students and more than fifty faculties and other staff in

the college and for all of them sufficient parking space as also a way

to go to the college will be required. Before permitting sale of the

property, interests of the students, faculties and other staff of the

college need to be looked into. Therefore, in the right portion of the

property in question, where the way to go to the college and the

parking space for two-wheelers exist, sufficient area for the way and

for the parking space need to be left. Hence, in considered view of

this Court, in the aforementioned right portion area, it would be

appropriate to leave 25 feet wide space with the existing length for

way to go to the college and 20 feet wide space with the existing

length for parking of vehicles. Therefore, it is directed that the trust

shall proceed to implement its decision for sale of the land leaving

the aforementioned area for the way and for the parking space

subject to fresh valuation of the property as on today. This

valuation shall be disclosed to the Collector/Registrar of the Public

Trusts, who, in turn, shall facilitate the implementation of the

decision of sale of the property to the highest bidder, through

public auction inviting nationwide bids. After the sale, the

Collector/Registrar of the Public Trusts shall also ensure that the

purpose of the sale is fructified within a reasonable period.

25. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 passed by

Respondent No.2/Registrar is hereby set aside and the instant writ

petition is allowed in the terms indicated in the preceding

paragraph.

26. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham