Mahant Suryaprakash Ranchhoddas ... vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 1124 Guj

     C/SCA/5308/1999                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5308 of 1999


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER                         Sd/-

================================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
    MAHANT SURYAPRAKASH RANCHHODDAS DECD. THRO' HEIRS & 2
                           other(s)
                           Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.2
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.3,1.4,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,3
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                              Date : 02/02/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of fiiling this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

"(A) To command the respondents to produce before this Honourable Court:- (i) letter No.PFCH/2468-177- BHAG, 1.E dated 30.03.1998 of Government of Gujarat, Legal Department referred to in the letter dated 2.4.1998 (Annexure-A) of the second respondent, (ii) Letter No.EC/ Armash/Vashi/1146/98 dated 2.4.1998 of the Government of Gujarat referred to in order dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure-B) of the second respondent, (iii) Letter No.EC/Srmsdh/Vsdhi/96/99 dated 16th June 1999 (Annexure-B), (iv) Letter No.PFCH/2468/177/Bhag.1/E dated 27.11.1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, referred to in the second respondent's order dated 27.1.1998 (Annexure-C);

(B) To quash and set aside:-(i) No.PFCH/2468/177/Bhag.1/E dated 27.11.1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (ii) No.PFCH/2468-177-BHAG, 1.E dated 30.03.1998 of Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (iii) No.EC/Armash/Vashi/1146/98 dated 2.4.1998 of Government of Gujarat, (iv) No.EC/Srmsdh/Vsdhi/96/99 dated 11.6.1999 of the District Magistrate, Vadodara, (v) Order No.Devsthan/M.A.G./6007/1999 dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure-B) of the second respondent.

(C) To stay pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders set out in prayer (B) herein before;

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

(D) To restrain pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the respondents from altering or taking steps to alter any entry in favour of the first petitioner in revenue records relating to any property of estate of Guru Atmaram or withdrawing any notice of attachment issue to any tenant of any property mentioned in the schedules to the order dated 27.1.1998 of the second respondent (Annexure-C);

(E) To grant such otehr and further reliefs as this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper; and

(F) To provide for the costs of this petition."

2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is that the properties in question were originaly private properties of Guru Keshavdas, and after the death of Guru Keshavdas, Guru Karsandas became the Mahant and succeeded the properties under his Will. On the death of Guru Karsandas his chela Guru Atmaram became Mahant and succeeded to the properties of Guru Karsandas under his Will dated 08.12.1941. Thereafter, Guru Atmaram died leaving his Will dated 06.05.1947, appointing Guru Ranchhodas as Chela.

2.1 The petitioners challenged the application no. 180/47-48 passed by the Second Class Magistrate Baroda held that Ranchhodas was shishya and heir of Guru Atmaram. However, the then District Magistrate set aside the order of 2 nd Class Magistrate. The District Judge by order dated 20.01.1959 held

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

that Guru Ranchoddas had failed to prove that he was shishya of Guru Atmaram. Against that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.659/1959 on 01.05.1959, which came to be finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.11.1986, in appeal filed by Guru Ranchoddas with a finding that he has failed to prove that he was appointed as chela or shishya by Guru Atmaram. In the year 1968, during the pendency of the suit, one Vitthaldas Patel had applied for registration of the said Ramji Mandir as public trust. The inquiry was numbered as inquiry no. 98/68 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara, who by order dated 30.01.1971 has held that the properties of the Mahant were of his ownership and were not any properties of any trust. The said decisions has become final as there has not been any further proceedings undertaken under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

2.2. Thereafter, Guru Ranchoddas under his Will dated 12.02.1978 appointed the deceased petitioner no.1 as his Chela or heir. Mahant Ranchoddas had expired on 14.02.1978, thereafter, petitioners made applicantion no.34/95 in the Court of Civil Judge for succession certificate inrespect of the properties left by Guru Ranchoddas including the properties of Guru Atmaram which had devolved upon Guru Ranchoddas. The deceased petitioner, in the year 1996 as well as 1997 made representations to the Government of Gujarat for restoring the properties of Guru Atmaram to him under section 11(2) of the Baroda Nivasrsi Niyam Act, which deals regarding appontment of administrator of properties which cannot be taken in possession for want of eligible heir.

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

2.3 The Government of Gujarat took a decision to handover the property to the deceased petitioner no.1 immovable properties and cash of Ramji Mandir under temporary custody of Mamlatdar Vadodara. The Joint Secretary of Legal Department of Governement of Gujarat wrote a letter dated 27.11.1997, instructing the Collector of Vadodara to take on the proceedings for entrusting the properties to the first petitioners. In that way of the said order of the respondents and the State Government the deceased petitioner no.1 has submitted a pursis dated 17.12.1997 in the Succession Application No.34 /95 that it was not necessary to proceed further with the said application and accordingly the same can be disposed of. Further, the District Magistrate, Vadodara by his letter dated 26.12.1997, had instucted the Mamlatdar, Vadodara to take immidiate proceedings to entrust the said properties to petitioner no.1 and accordingly, the respondent no.2 made his order dated 27.01.1998, for entrusting the properties to petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 took steps to get the properties and entered into petitioner no.1 name village of revenue record and instucted the tenants in the properties to deal with the petitioner no.1 as landlord.

2.4 It is contended that the Income Tax officer had issued notice under section 211 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising several demands agreegating to the tune of Rs.11,43,582/- against the estate of Guru Atmaram and directed to pay within a period of five days. Pursuant to that, Mamlatdar, Vadodara City by his letter dated 12.02.1998 requested the Tressury Officer to pass appropriate order for withdrawal of amount of Rs.19 lacs, from the Government of Gujarat in favour of the

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

petitioner no.1. The Additional Treasury Officer had informed the Mamlatdar of Vadodara to obtain sanction of the Government as the period of more than five years has lapsed after the sum has been deposited. Simultaneously, the Mamlatdar of Vadodara City passed a letter dated 19.02.1998, informing the Collector that proceedings were being taken to entrust all immovable propoerties and cash of Ramji mandir under his office order dated 27.01.1998 and other cash amounts had been entrusted and for passing certain order of cancelling entries of tenants in certain lands. Accordingly, the second respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner no.1. However, the State Government, Department of Law by its comunication dated 30.03.1998, stayed all the proceedings. Upon the aforesaid facts, it is the main grievance of the petitioner, that without giving any opportunity of being heard the State Government has taken such steps and held up the payment of the amount and transfer of the property to the petitioners. It is also a ground that when it was decided that all the properties were belonging to the personal property of Mahant that fact was also considered by the Charity Commissioner. The State Government could not have stayed the process of handing over the properties including cash amount to the petitioner. It is further contended that properties in question were under temporray custody of respondents pursuant to the order dated 04.10.1947. Upon all such grounds the petitioner has prayed for quashing all the communications referred to herinabove.

3. It is contended in the reply that the temple situated in Hanuman Pole in Wadi aread of Baroda city, one Atmaramdasji

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

was the Mahant of that temple. The devotees of the said Mahant used to donate properties to teh Mahant for the welfare of public at large and this is how the Mahant owned movable and immovable properties worth crores of rupees. That the Mahant was a bachelor and had expired on 04.10.1947. It is further avered that after the death of the deceased Mahant, one Sevadas Keshavdas and Maganlal Jagannath made an application to the District Magistrate, Baroda stating that the deceased Mahant Atmaramdasji had expired without leaving any heir and therefore, the State should take over all the properties of Atmaramdasji. Thereafter, an advertisement was published in the newspaper, wherein the properties of the Atmaramdasji were described and stated that if any person is claiming the said properties then the same should be informed to the authoritye on or before 01.12.1947. Purusant to the said advertisement no claim was recived by the authority within the presribed time limit. Therefore, the properties were declared as unclaimed properties.

3. 1 It is further avered therein that Mahant Ranchhodas, the father of the petitioner no.1 had filed a civil suit no. 659 of 1959 for declaring that he is the only shishya of deceased Mahant Atmaramdasji and as such he is entitled heir to inherrit the properties and seeking restrining the State for interfering with the possession of property. It is also declared to the effect that he has become the owner of the said property as mentioned in the plaint. The trial Court held that Mahant Ranchhodas has failed to prove that he was a shishya or legal heir to inherit the properties of Mahant Atmaramdasji,

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed appeal before the District Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the decre of the trial Judge. The State Government has challenged the same by way of Second Appeal no.757 of 1966 before this Court. This Court had allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the decree of District Court and restored the decree of trial Court. Against that Mahant Ranchhodas filed Civil Appeal no. 351 of 1973 before the Apex Court, challenging the order passed by this Court in second appeal. The Apex Court had upheld the observations of this Court that the appellant therein has not been able to prove himself as chela of Mahant Atmaramdasji. It is also submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner herein have lost before the Supreme Court, the State Government has finally declared the properties of Mahant Atmaramdasji as unclimed properties. Meanwhile, on behalf of petitioner no.1, Mahant Suryaprakash, Shri Manibhai B Shah made an application dated 21.11.1990, requesting for handing over the properties of Mahant Atmaramdasji to Shri Suryaprakashji. It is also contended that Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Legal Department as well as the RLA made noting dated 14.08.1992, which clearly stated that as the decesed Mahant Atmaramdasji was a bachelor the petitioner no.1 cannot be given the properties on the basis of class one heir. It is contended that the communication upto then Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State and ultimately on 15.10.1997, the then Law Minister and the Chief Minister of the State have passed the order stating that said properties of Atmaramdasji be handed over to Shri Suryaprakashji. Accordingly, Legal Department wrote a letter to the concerned Collector of Baroda dated 29.11.1997, stalling the process of handing over

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

the properties of the Mahant Atmaramdasji to Shri Suryaprakashji i.e petitioner no.1. It is contended that this exercise is nothing but to rectify the earlier grave error made in passing such order. It is also contended that opportunity of being heard will not serve any purpose.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for respondent no.1, at length.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated hereinabove. He has also submitted that considering the pendency of the matter and the facts that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before stalling the process of handing over the properties, the matter may be remanded back to the concerned authorities for deciding afresh after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner.

6. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara has vehmently opposed the petition and submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions made by both the sides, coupled with facts narrated in the affidavit in reply, it is admitted fact that the property in question does not belong to the government. Not only it appears fom the record that the property is of private property of late Mahant Atmaram but also the government has assessed the property as unclaimed

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

property. It appears that initially the order of handing over the moveable and immoveable property including the cash amount was passed by the earlier government and the cheque was also issued in favour of the original petitioner no.1, who had died during the pendency of the petition.

8. It is pertinent to note that the deceased petitioner was declared to be a "Chela" or heir of Guru Ranchhoddas by his Will dated 12.2.1978. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Civil Judge for Succession Certificate by filing Succession Application No.34 of 1995. Pending that application, decision to hand over the movable and immovable property in favour of the petitioner was taken by the then State Government and proceeding of entrustment of properties to the petitioner was initiated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner withdrew said Succession Application No.34 of 1995 for issuance of succession certificate due to decision of earlier State Government of handing over movable and immovable property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has relinquished his right to get succession certificate.

9. It also appears that the next government had stayed the proceedings and intimated the Collector to keep inabayance of the order and granting the properties in favour of the deceased petitioner. Upon considering the averments made in the affidavit in reply it clearly appears that at no point of time any opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is tried law that any order affecting any legal rights of any person, an opportunity of being heard needs to be granted especially when there is one order passed in his favour in respect of moveable or

C/SCA/5308/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2022

immovable property and the same order has partly implemented. Therefore, it is immidiate requirement of principles of natural law and before passing any adverse orders such persons needs to be granted appropriate opportunity of being heard. Admitedly, in the present case, no opportunity had given of being heard before cancelling the earlier order passed by State Governemnt.

10. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to give appropriate opportunity to the petitioners of being heard for cancellation of the order of granting moveable and immovable property in favour of deceased petitioner no.1. The respondent authorities shall decide the application afresh and such exercise be undertaken as early as possible, preferrably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order of this Court.

11. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Sd/-

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) R.S. MALEK