Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bansidas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1471 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
BANSIDAS S/O BADRIDAS, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CULTIVATOR VILL.CHAPDA GAHAN
TAH. SEONI MALWA DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(Through legal representatives, vide Court order dated 02-09-
2009)
(a). MOHANDAS SHARMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O
LATE BANSIDAS PROFESSION SERVICE IN MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, BHOPAL, R/O E-2/318. ARERA COLONY,
BHOPAL
(b). bALRAM SHARMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O
LATE BANSIDAS PROFESSION : TAILORING R/O
H.NO.90, MAYA NIVAS, NEAR GUFA MANDIR ROAD,
LALGHATI BHOPAL
(c). DURGA PRASAD SHARMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE BANSIDAS PROFESSION : CULTIVATOR R/O
VILLAGE CHAPTAGAHAN POST JAT GUTRADIYA
TEHSIL SEONI MALWA DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD.
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA MENON - SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH MS. RITU
JANJANI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH :
SECRETARY PUBLIC TRUST DHARMASWA &
WAKFS VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER-SUB-REGISTRAR
PUBLIC TRUST, SEONIMALWA,
DIST.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 2/20/2024
1:12:38 PM
2
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner while praying for the following
reliefs :
"(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to intervene in the matter and issue a writ of certiorari to quash
Annexure-P/1, P/2 and P/3 in the interest of justice.
(ii) The lands bearing Khasra Nos.100 and 114 of Village,
Chapadagahan, Tehsil Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad mentioned in para
No.5.4 of the present petition are the ancestral property of the petitioners and
as indicated in Misil Badobast of 1916 - 17, Annexure-P/4, these lands were
held by the forefathers of the petitioners Late Pratap Das and Ugradas as
maurasi maufi khairati, who remained in the cultivating possession thereof as
maufidar and later these lands were devolved upon Badridas their grandfather
and Bansidas father, who became the Bhumiswami of the said lands on the
commencement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and on death of their father
they are the Bhumiswamis in cultivating possession of the aforesaid lands. The
respondent No.3 purporting to exercise power under the M.P. Public
Trust Act, 1951 tried to put these lands on auction, once in the year 2003 and
second time on 5-5-2010 without any power to do so illegally and
unconstitutionally, which needs to be prohibited under the extraordinary powers
of this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 and 227.
(iii) The respondents be prohibited from invading into the petitioner's
right over the said property and desist from interfering with the same.
(iv) It be also held that there is no obligation upon the petitioner to
furnish accounts of the aforesaid property to the respondent No.2.
(v) Cost of the petition be allowed to the petitioner."
2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the petitioner is an
agriculturist and owns Shri Radha Krishna Temple, situated in Village Chapda
Gahan, Tehsil - Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad. The land bearing Khasra
No.100 measuring 1.11 acres and Khasra No.114 measuring 10.80 acres, total
area 20.91 acres of Village, Chapda Gahan, Tehsil Seonimalwa District
Hoshangabad was held by Urgradas and Pratapdas, resident of the said Village
as Maurasi Maufi Khairati in the year 1916-17 for the services rendered by them
for Shri Radha Krishna Temple in the said Village, which is evident in the Misil
Bandobast.
3. The present petitioner is the son of Late Badridas. Late Pratap Das
and Ugra Das were grandfather and great grandfather respectively of the
petitioner. The lands were recorded as Maurasi Maufi Khairati in the name of
great grandfather and grandfather of the petitioner. Copies of khasras have
been brought on record as Annexure-P/5 to Annexure-P/9. Upon coming into
force of the M.P. Land Revenue Code on 01-11-1956, Badridas who is the
father of the petitioner became Bhumiswami of the land in terms of provisions
of Section 158 of the the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity
"MPLRC").
4. In the year 2003 efforts were made to auction the aforesaid property
while treating the same to be Trust property. Under a misconception a civil suit
was filed by the petitioner vide RCS No.32-A/2003. The said suit was sought
to be withdrawn, as in terms of Section 80 of CPC no notice was given.
However, the concerned Court did not allow the petitioner to withdraw the suit
and later on, the suit was dismissed being not maintainable. Against the
judgment passed by the Civil Court, an appeal was preferred by the present
petitioner which according to para 5.11 of the petition is still pending. Thus,
assailing the order pertaining to registration of the Trust and subsequent notices
contained in Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3, this petition is filed by the
petitioner.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present
case, the moot question which requires consideration by this Court is, as to
whether without fulfilling the requirements as stipulated in Section 4 of the M.P.
Public Trusts Act, 1951 [hereafter referred as the "Act of 1951"] the property
in question could have been registered as a Public Trust or not. The counsel
contends that the property in question was an ancestral property which was
owned by Late Badridas, who was the father of the present petitioner. Late
Badridas had no right to move an application to seek registration of the
property as a Public Trust in terms of Section 2(4) of the Act of 1951,
nevertheless, such an application was made. The Authority without considering
the fact that the said application was not filed in tune with the provisions of
Section 4(3) of the Act of 1951, yet registered the same as a Trust. The said
registration of the Trust was not in the knowledge of the present petitioner, it
came to the knowledge of the present petitioner when the notice contained in
Annexure-P/3, dated Nil March, 2003 was received by the petitioner.
6 . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that under
misconception, though initially a suit was filed, but later on efforts were made to
withdraw the suit. However, the prayer was declined by the Court and the suit
was dismissed being not maintainable. Against the judgment of the Civil Court a
first appeal was preferred. It is also contended by the counsel that a detailed
rejoinder has been filed and registration of the Trust has been seriously
disputed, as even Late Badrridas under misconception, moved an application
under Section 4 of the Act of 1951. No such application could have been
moved by Late Badridas as the property was ancestral and other co-parceners
also had rights in the property in question. The property being the property of
an undivided family, there could not have been registration of the same as a
Trust at the behest of Late Badridas. It is, thus contended by the learned
counsel that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
Learned counsel for the Sate while taking this Court to the Annexures filed
along with return submits that on an application moved by Late Badridas the
properties were registered as Public Trust properties and the order of
registration was passed on 08-02-1955. The order of registration dated 08-02-
1955, in absence of any challenge, attained finality. It is undisputed that till filing
of this petition, the order dated 08-02-1955 was not assailed by Late Badrdas or
his legal heirs, and directly by way of the present petition there is an attempt to
challenge the same.
8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents/State that the property has been recorded as a Trust property in
the record which is further evident from Annexure-R/2 filed with the return. It is
thus, contended by the counsel that the present petition having been filed after
52 years from the date of registration of the Trust, deserves to be dismissed.
9. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
10. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
the records.
11. The challenge in this petition by the petitioner is to the order of
registration of the Trust on the ground, that without complying with the
provisions as envisaged under Section 4 of the Act of 1951, the property in
question was registered as a Trust. In order to deal with the aforesaid
contentions, if the provisions as stipulated in Section 4 of the Act of 1951 are
taken into consideration, it transpires that when an application is moved for
creation of a Trust, the said application should be in such a Form, as may be
prescribed and also should contain the particulars which are enumerated in
Section 4(3) of the Act of 1951.
12. Rule 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Rules, 1962 provides application for
registration of a Public Trust. In terms of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules,
prescribed form of the application has also been provided in Form-III. The
said prescribed Form is reproduced hereunder :
"FORM III
[See Rule 4(2)]
To,
The Registrar of Public Trusts,
...... District,
In the matter of Public Trusts.........
I/We .......... Trustee/Trustees of the abovenamed Trust, hereby apply under section 4
of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (XXX of 1951), for the registrtion of the said
Public Trust.
2. I/we submit the following necessary particulars:
(i) The origin, the nature and the object of the Public Trust....
(ii) The place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the
Trust is situate......
(iii) Name of the Working Trustees and Manager, with their addresses.....
(iv) Mode of succession to trusteeship and managership....
(v) Particulars of documents creating the Trust (attach copies)...
(vi) Particulars of the scheme, if any, relating to the Trust (attach copies)........
(vii) Movable property with estimated value of each class of such property......
Note : Entries should be made by broad description of classes of such property, e.g.
furniture, book etc., rather than of each individual article. Entry regarding cash should be
made only, if such cash forms part of the capital of the Trust. In the case of scrips, give
particulars of each security. stock, share and debenture including the number which it bears.
(viii)(a) Details of immovable property showing the village or town where situate
along with Municipal or Survey or Khasra No., area assessment and description of the
tenure on which held (attach certified copies of the entries in the record of rights, or
municipal record relating to the properties) :
(1). .....
(2) ......
(3) ....
(b) Estimated value of each immovable property accompanied by a valuation report
of an expert :
(1). ....
(2) ....
(3).....
(ix) Sources of income of the Trust .......
(x) Average gross annual income
(xi) Average annual expenditure
(a) on remuneration to Trustee and Managers ....
(b) on establishment and staff ....
(c) on religious objects .....
(d) on charitable objects ....
(e) on miscellaneous items ....
(xii) Particulars of encumbrances, if any, on Trust property .....
(xiii) Particulars of title-deeds pertaining to Trust property and the names of
trustees in possession thereof ....
(xiv) The normal budget of financial year .....
(xv) Remarks, if any........
3. Fee of Rs. ...........accompanies.
4. Any communication to the Trustee or Manager in connection with the Trust may
be sent to the following address :
Name .....
Address ....
"I/we declare that (i) no application in respect of the Trust mentioned above has
been previously filed before any other Registrar (ii) the application/applications in respect of
the Trust mentioned above has been previously filed before the Registrar ...... district and
was/were rejected for the following reasons :
.....................
.....................
Signature of the applicant/applicants
Verification
Verified that the contents of paragraphs ...... are true to my/our personal
knowledge, and the contents of paragraphs .... are based upon information received and
believed to be true.
Signed this .......... 19 .... at....
.......................
Signature of the applicant/applicants."
13. The application which was moved by Late Badridas contained in
Annexure-R/1, if is perused while placing the same with juxtaposition with the
aforesaid prescribed Form-III, it would would reveal that the said application
was moved in terms of the prescribed Form-III as provided in Section 4(2) of
the M.P. Public Trust Rules. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that the
application for registration of the Trust was not in consonance with the
statutory provisions, in the considered view of this Court, is unsustainable.
14. Undisputedly, there is challenge in this petition to the order of
registration of the Trust which was passed in the year 1955. Though in para 4
of the petition an attempt has been to explain the delay by the petitioner in para
4 of the petition. It reflects that the petitioner derived the knowledge of
registration of the property as a Public Trust on 16-05-2006 when he received a
copy of the order pertaining to registration of the Trust dated 08-02-1955.
Thereafter, as the petitioner had challenged the notice which was issued to him
in the month of March, 2003 a suit was filed. Later on, efforts were made to
withdraw the suit, but the concerned Court did not allow the petitioner to
withdraw the suit, but the suit later on, was dismissed.
15. Dismissal of the suit was assailed by the present petitioner by filing
an appeal. Fate of the appeal is unexplained in the present case. In any case,
even taken into consideration the pleadings as putforth in the memo of petition,
it is evident from a perusal of the notice of March, 2003 contained in Annexure-
P/3, that the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the property in
question while informing that the said property being the Trust property was to
be auctioned. Therefore, as per petitioner's own showing, upon receipt of the
notice contained in Annexure-P/3, dated Nil March 2003, the petitioner was well
aware that the property was a Trust property. Yet, no efforts were made by the
petitioner to challenge the order of registration of the Trust, till filing of the
present petition, which was filed by the petitioner somewhere in the month of
January, 2007.
16. Therefore, the reasons as detailed in para 4 of the writ petition are
neither sufficient nor justifiable, taking into consideration the fact that on the
application of Late Badridas himself, the property was registered as a Public
Trust and in the record also, the same was mentioned as a Trust property only
(Annexure-R/2).
17. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view, that the cause
agitated in the instant petition suffers from delay and laches, as an order of
registration of the Trust dated 08-02-1955, has been challenged by filing the
present petition in the month of January, 2007 . i.e. almost after the delay of 52
years.
18. Thus analysed, this Court does not find any substance in the this
petition and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
