Gujarat High Court
Pradipgiri Gurushri Ravindragiri vs Joint Charity Commissioner on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4309 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PRADIPGIRI GURUSHRI RAVINDRAGIRI & ANR.
Versus
JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP waives service of rule
for the respondents.
2. The present Special Civil Application impugns the order
dated 31.12.2024 passed below Exh.14 in Civil Misc. Application
(Delay) No.10 of 2023 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional
District Judge, Visavadar whereby the delay condonation
application of the petitioners has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the petitioners case are that, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
petitioner No.1's grandfather was Garasdar of Mangnath, Pipli
village. As per the order dated 16.10.1951 passed by the
Mamlatdar, the subject land had been given to the petitioner
No.1's grandfather for cultivation as per the provisions of
Barkhali (Abolition) Act, 1951. That the said land came to be
included as a land of the Trust at the time of its registration.
That the land was mistakenly included as Trust property. That
thereafter the petitioner No.1's Guru had filed Application No.58
of 2000 under Section 22A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to remove the
subject land from the list of property of the Trust as it was
included by mistake. That vide order dated 02.06.2000, the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application
No.58 of 2000 by reasoned order excluding the subject land from
the list of the properties of the Trust. That thereafter the original
applicant has sold out the land to the petitioner No.2 herein vide
registered sale deed No.294 dated 11.07.2000. However, one
Bhairavgiri Guru Sohangiri challenged the order dated
02.06.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner removing the subject property from the list of the
Trust by filing Revision Application No.7 of 2001 before the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 70A of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Gujarat Public Trust Act. The original applicant filed objections
to the said revision application. That during the pendency of the
revision application, the said applicant passed away. Thereafter,
the original applicant also passed away. The learned Joint
Charity Commissioner vide order dated 23.02.2015 set aside the
order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dated
02.06.2000 and ordered the subject land to be again included in
the list of the properties of the Trust. That the petitioners were
not aware of the order dated 23.02.2015. That in the year 2021,
when the petitioner No.2 approached the petitioner No.1 for
entering the name of the petitioner No.2 in the revenue record
and the petitioners made application for obtaining the revenue
record, it was revealed that the subject land was Trust land and
therefore, they came to know about the order dated 23.02.2015
in Revision Application No.7 of 2001. That thereafter the
petitioners applied for the certified copy of the order dated
23.02.2015 on 05.10.2021 and the same was received on
24.02.2022. That thereafter the petitioners' advocate received
copy of the entire record from the office of the Charity
Commissioner on 24.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners had
preferred appeal under Section 72 of the Gujarat Public Trust
Act along with the application for condonation of delay of 6
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
years, 8 months and 20 days. The appeal came to be filed on
24.04.2022 before the learned Additional District Judge,
Visavdar challenging the said order dated 23.02.2015 passed by
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Application
No.7 of 2001. That by the impugned order, the learned
Additional District Judge rejected the petitioners' application for
condonation of delay holding that there are no sufficient reasons
to condone the delay of 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. The
petitioners were also directed to deposit costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Special
Civil Application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
learned District Court while deciding the application for
condonation of delay has erred in coming to the conclusion that
sufficient reasons for condonation of delay are not enumerated.
He submits that the facts as stated in the application for
condonation of delay would amount to sufficient reasons for
condonation of delay. He submits that the revision application
filed by a third party was also entertained after condonation of
delay of 510 days by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. He
submits that after the applicant in the Revision Application No.7
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
of 2001 expired, the respondent No.1 also expired and the legal
heirs of the parties were not joined. He submits that the learned
Joint Charity Commissioner had passed the order dated
23.02.2015 without verifying the status of the subject land. He
submits that the proceedings were decided without hearing and
joining the petitioner No.2 who had purchased the subject land.
He submits that the petitioners were not heard and were not
aware about the order dated 23.02.2015. He submits that the
petitioners came to know about the order passed by the
respondent No.1 only on 01.10.2021 when they applied for
certified copy of the revenue records from the revenue
authorities and that they have immediately taken steps to file
appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. He
submits that no prejudice will be caused if the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned. He submits that the petitioner No.2 is a
bonafide purchaser of the subject land and had purchased the
subject land by way of registered sale deed. He submits that due
to rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the
petitioners have not got any opportunity of personal hearing or
to lead any evidence to show that they were bonafide purchasers
of the subject property. He submits that the learned District
Court ought to have liberally construed the sufficient cause in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
the present case and the delay ought to have been condoned to
deliver substantial justice. He, therefore, submits that the
impugned order be quashed and set aside as it destroys the
rights of the petitioners.
5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the
documents on record.
6. The order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner, Rajkot in Revision Application No. 7 of
2001 in Trust Registration No.A/1602/Junagadh has been
admittedly challenged after the delay of 6 years, 8 months and
20 days. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned
order has recorded that though the petitioners claimed to have
purchased the subject property on 11.07.2000, however, they
have never applied to join them as parties in the Revision
Application No. 7 of 2001 which was filed before the learned
Joint Charity Commissioner by the original applicant who had
allegedly sold the subject land and who was party to the revision
application proceedings. Further, the petitioner No.1 who claims
to be the heir of his Guru and the trustee of the Trust has not
applied to be joined as a party after the death of his Guru. The
learned District Court has further recorded a finding that though
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
the petitioner No.1 claims to be the legal heir of his Guru, the
said fact is not proved by any document to show any relationship
between the petitioner No.1 and the deceased who was the
original applicant in Application No.58 of 2000. The learned
District Court has also recorded that though the application
challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 in Revision Application
No. 7 of 2001 has been challenged by the petitioner No.2 for
correcting the defects in the land revenue record, however, no
application has been given to join him as a party in the
application with regard to the Trust. The learned District Court
has thus come to the conclusion that since the petitioner No.1
who claims to be the legal heir of his Guru has not been able to
prove his relationship, he has not given any details about the
knowledge of the affairs of the Trust as well as details about the
pending revision application proceedings when his Guru passed
away, the learned District Court has held that no sufficient
cause has been shown by the petitioners for condoning the huge
delay.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not given any
plausible reason for initiating mutation proceedings in respect of
the Trust property of which the sale deed is purported to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
been executed in the year 2000.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons stated
in the application for condonation of delay do not constitute
sufficient cause. Further, the status of the petitioners has also
not been proved as recorded in the impugned order. No
interference is called for in the reasons recorded by the learned
Additional District Judge in the impugned order.
The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
