Adaras Vidya Mandir Society vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7825 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 765/2023

Adaras Vidya Mandir Society, Outside Abma Pole, through the Secretary Sudhir Mutha Son of Laxminarayan Mutha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o C-403, Archi Peace Park, Hiran Magri Sector No.4, New Vidya Nagar, Manwa Kheda, Rural Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Revenue Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Collector, Udaipur.

3. Madan Mohan Malviya Rajkiya Ayurved Mahavidhyalaya, Amba Mata Scheme, Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant           : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Advocate
                          assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Naushad and
                          Mr. Anirudh Khatri
For Respondents         : Mr. Salman Agha
                          for Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

04/10/2023

By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi) :

1. This intra court appeal writ has been filed by the

appellant - Adaras Vidya Mandir Society, Udaipur (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the appellant-society') challenging the order dated

31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.1478/2000 (Adarsh Vidya Mandir Society Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby the said writ petition filed by

the appellant-society was dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-society was

first registered on 08.06.1942 under Section 5 of the Mewar

Societies Registration Act, 1942 and thereafter also registered

under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

3. In the year 1942, the then Maharana of Mewar allotted 10

Bigha and 10 Biswa of land to the appellant-society free of cost on

the condition that the land would not be used for any other

purpose except for development of education. A patta dated

07.10.1943 was also issued by the erstwhile Mewar Government

regarding the said allotment.

4. The Collector, Udaipur sent a notice dated 18.07.1980 to

the appellant-society informing that it has not utilised 6 Bigha and

6 Biswa of land out of the allotted land and thus, violated the

condition No.3 of the patta granted to it by the erstwhile Mewar

Government. It was also mentioned in the notice that on account

of the said violation of the appellant-society, the government has

ordered for resumption of allotted land and decided to allot 6

Bigha and 6 Biswa of land out of the said land to Madan Mohan

Malviya Rajkiya Ayurved Mahavidhyalaya, Udaipur (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the Ayurved College'). The Collector, Udaipur also

required the appellant-society to appear before it on 07.08.1980.

5. Pursuant to the notice dated 18.07.1980,

appellant-society appeared before the Collector, Udaipur and

submitted its reply/representation/explanation to it. Thereafter,

the Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 30.05.1985 ordered for

resumption of 10 Bigha and 10 Biswa of land as well as building

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

constructed thereon and further granted approval for allotment of

6 Bigha and 6 Biswa of land to the Ayurved College.

6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.05.1985, the

appellant-society preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.1767/1985 (Adaras Vidya Mandir Society, Udaipur Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Court, which came to be

allowed vide order dated 27.01.1999 and the learned Single Judge

quashed and set aside the order dated 30.05.1985 passed by the

Collector, Udaipur while remanding the matter to it with a direction

to decide afresh by a speaking order after giving reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the appellant-society and any of the

authority of the Ayurved College, whom he thinks fit and proper. A

direction was issued to the parties to maintain status quo for a

period of four months with a further direction to the Collector,

Udaipur to decide the matter within three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order.

7. Pursuant to the said directions, the Collector, Udaipur

issued a notice dated 05.04.1999 to the appellant-society and

asked it to appear before it on 19.04.1999 with all the proofs

available with it.

8. It appears that pursuant to the said notice dated

05.04.1999, the appellant-society appeared before the Collector,

Udaipur and submitted its reply/representation/explanation. The

Collector, Udaipur, after hearing the counsel for the

appellant-society and counsel for the State, passed the order

dated 15.12.1999 and ordered for resumption of 10 Bigha and 10

Biswa of land allotted to the appellant-society and thereafter

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

allotted 6 Bigha and 6 Biswa of land to the Ayurved College as per

the earlier proposal. In respect of remaining 4 Bigha and 4 Biswa

of land, the Collector, Udaipur sent the matter for guidance to the

State Government.

9. Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.12.1999, the

appellant-society preferred the writ petition SBCWP No.1478/2000

before this Court, however, the learned Single Judge of this Court

dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 16.05.2000 in

limine.

10. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16.05.2000, the

appellant-society filed an intra court appeal writ before the

Division Bench of this Court being D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.415/2000 (Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Society, Udaipur Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), which came to be allowed vide order dated

22.03.2011, whereby the order dated 16.05.2000 passed by the

learned Single Judge was set aside and SBCWP No.1478/2000 was

remanded to the writ court for deciding the same afresh on

merits.

11. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated

31.08.2023 dismissed SBCWP No.1478/2000. Hence, this special

appeal writ.

12. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant-society has vehemently argued that the

learned Single Judge has committed error on facts and law in

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-society.

13. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge has

erred in holding that after remanding the matter to the Collector,

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

Udaiupr by this Court vide order dated 27.01.1999 passed in

SBCWP No.1767/1985, it was not necessary for the Collector,

Udaipur to issue a fresh notice. Learned Sr. Counsel for the

appellant-society has contended that with the setting aside of the

order dated 30.05.1985 passed by the Collector, Udaipur,

everything that culminated into cancellation including the show

cause notice dated 18.07.1980 was set aside and that would mean

that a fresh show cause notice should have been issued by the

Collector, Udaipur indicating the precious reasons for resumption

of allotted land. It is further contended that even the show cause

notice issued by the Collector, Udaipur earlier on 18.07.1980 was

inadequate, unambiguous and cannot be termed as any show

cause notice.

14. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant-society that

the learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the fact that

in the notice dated 18.07.1980, it was mentioned that the

appellant-society has not utilized 6 Bigha and 6 Biswa of land and

has, thus, violated the condition No.3 of the patta, whereas the

condition No.3 of the patta speaks about subletting and not about

non-utilization of land. It is submitted that non-utilization of land

cannot be construed as violation of condition No.3 of the patta and

in such circumstance, the impugned order dated 31.08.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

15. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant-society has

submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that

the purpose for which the land was allotted to the

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

appellant-society was frustrated as it was charging fees from the

students. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has

completely ignored the fact that there was no condition in the

patta issued to the appellant-society that it would not charge fees

form the students.

16. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant-society has further

submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken into

consideration the fact that the appellant-society does have equity

in its favour as it has invested huge amount in constructing the

building and purchasing infrastructure, that too for a long period

running from 1942 to till date. Learned Sr. Counsel for the

appellant-society has argued that the learned Single Judge has

erred in not taking into consideration the fact that at present a

school is running on the allotted land and around 1000 students

are studying in it. It is further argued that no useful purpose

would be served in resuming the allotted land on the ground that

the appellant-society is not running the school and it is some other

entity which is running the school.

17. It is argued that the learned Single Judge has committed

grave error in not appreciating the fact that the appellant-society

has never transferred or sublet any portion of allotted land and

building to the Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir. It is contended that

the appellant-society has never received any specific notice with

regard to the fact that it mortgaged, sold and gifted the allotted

land to Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir. It is further contended that

the appellant-society is running its school in the name and style of

Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir and the appellant-society and

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir are not the separate entities,

however, the Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir is the name of the

school of the appellant-society and in such circumstance the

finding recorded by the Collector, Udaipur in the order dated

15.12.1999 regarding subletting/transferring of land to Maharana

Mewar Vidya Mandir is completely erroneous, injustice and

improper and has wrongly been affirmed by the learned Single

Judge.

18. In support of the above contentions, learned Sr. Counsel

for the appellant-society has placed reliance on the decisions

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri B.D. Gupta Vs.

State of Haryana reported in (1973) 3 SCC 149 decided on

18.09.1972; Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs.

Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and Others reported in (2007)

5 SCC 388 decided on 15.06.2007; UMC Technologies Private

Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another reported

in (2021) 2 SCC 551 decided on 16.11.2020; the decision

rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Urban

Improvement Trust, Udaipur and Ors. Vs. Maharana Pratap

Smarak Samiti, Udaipur reported in (1982) WLN (UC) 119

decided on 03.03.1982 and prayed that the order impugned dated

31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge; the order dated

15.12.1999 passed by the Collector, Udaipur may kindly be

quashed and set aside; the writ petition SBCWP No.1478/2000

filed by the appellant-society may kindly be allowed and the reliefs

prayed for in that writ petition may kindly be granted.

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has

vehemently submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned

order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is

contended that the learned Single Judge, after appreciating the

facts and law, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant-society. It is further submitted that from the own

admission of the appellant-society, it is clear that it has rented out

the land against the conditions of patta and further handed over

the whole land including building to the Vidyadan Trust (Maharana

Mewar Educational Trust), Udaipur and in such circumstance, no

fault can be found in the orders passed by the Collector, Udaipur

as well as the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, prayed that

there is no need to interfere in the orders passed by the Collector,

Udaipur as well as the learned Single Judge and the present

appeal filed by the appellant-society is liable to be dismissed.

20. Herd learned counsel for the parties.

21. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order has rejected

the contention of the appellant-society that the show cause notice

assigning any reasons was not given to it while observing that the

initial notice dated 18.07.1980 was in existence because while

allowing earlier writ petition SBCWP No.1767/1985 vide order

dated 27.01.1999, whereby the earlier order dated 30.05.1985

passed by the Collector, Udaipur was set aside, the learned Single

Judge ordered for passing a fresh order on merits.

22. We feel that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion

that only a direction was issued to pass a fresh speaking order by

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and no

such direction of issuance of fresh show cause notice was given.

23. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order has further

observed that there is no doubt that the earlier notice dated

18.07.1980 is still in existence as the appellant-society has not

chosen to challenge the said notice in the writ petition filed before

it. It is also observed that in the notice dated 18.07.1980, it is

clearly mentioned that the appellant-society has violated the

condition No.3 of the patta dated 07.10.1943.

24. We are of the view that no error can be found in the

above finding of the learned Single Judge recorded vide impugned

order dated 31.08.2023 passed in SBCWP No.1478/2000 because

while allowing earlier writ petition SBCWP No.1767/1985 the

learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.01.1999 directed the

Collector, Udaipur to pass a fresh speaking order after giving

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant-society and

other parties. No such direction of issuing fresh show cause notice

before passing a speaking order was there.

25. Apart from that, the purpose of issuing show cause notice

is to enable a party to file its response on the specific allegation,

question, query and issue. However, if a party is aware about the

nature of allegation and responds in relation to the said allegation,

it can be presumed that it is within the knowledge of the party

that what is the case against it. Much emphasis is laid on the issue

that in the earlier notice dated 18.07.1980 the reason for violation

of condition No.3 of patta is mentioned as non-utilization of land,

whereas the condition No.3 is about subletting, however, from the

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

facts emerged, it is clear that the appellant-society was aware of

the fact that the notice dated 18.07.1980 speaks about the

violation of condition No.3 of the patta i.e. in relation to subletting

because in the reply filed by it in response to the show cause

notice dated 18.07.1980, it has furnished its explanation on the

question of subletting. In the said reply, the appellant-society has

admitted the fact of subletting of some land to meet the financial

needs and for generating resources. The relevant portion of the

said reply reads as under :-

Þ3& jkT; ljdkj dk ;g vkns"k fd esokM jkT; }kjk iznku fd;s x;s iV~Vs dh "krZ la[;k 3 dh f[kykQ othZ dh xbZ blds mRrj esa fuosnu gS fd geus "krZ ds foifjr ,slk dksbZ Hka;dj dk;Z ugh fd;k gS fd ftl ds dkj.k laLFkk dks bruk dBkSj n.M fn;k tkos fd lkjh Hkwfe o bZekjr tCr ljdkj dj vk;qosZfnd egkfo/kky; dks iznku dh tkdj ekStqnk laLFkk dks tM ls m[ksM fn;k tkosA oSls ljdkj dks rks lc vf/kdkj gS ijUrq ifjfLFkfro"k vxj gels dksbZ =qfV gks xbZ rks D;k bruk dBksj n.M vxj gels dksbZ =qfV gks xbZ gS rks D;k bruk dBksj n.M nsuk U;k; laxr es ,oa dY;k.kdkjh jkT; ds vuq:i gksxk \ ge lR; dks fNikuk ugh pkgrs tSlk fd ge fuosnu dj pqds gS dqN o'kksZ ls dqN LokFkZ izsfjr rRoksa ds vUrxZr >wBs izpkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj ls le; ij vuqnku izkIr ugh gksus ls ;g laLFkk vkfFkZd ladV esa Ql xbZ Fkh bl dkj.k laLFkk ds fgr esa vUtkus o vpsru easa mDr Hkwfe dk vfr y?kq Hkkx fdjk;s ij ns fn;k x;k Fkk ijUrq ;fn ljdkj bl Hkwfe dks fdjk;s ls eqDr djkus gsrq vkns"k nsrh gS rks ge fdjk;snkj dks gVkus dks rRij gSA ;gk¡ ij ;g fuosnu djuk vuqfpr ugh gksxk fd cgq/kk laLFkk ds fgr dks n`f'Vdks.k esa j[krs gq;s dbZ vU; laLFkk,¡ Hkh budh Hkwfe dks fdjk;s ij nsrh jgh gSA vkSj blh n`f'Vdks.k dks e/; utj j[krs gq;s geus Hkh vkfFkZd ladV ls =k.k ikus gsrq fdjk;s ij y?kq Hkwfe ns nh FkhAß

26. So even though the notice dated 18.07.1980 speaks

about non-utilization of land but the appellant-society was aware

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

about the fact that the notice speaks about subletting and,

therefore, only it submitted its explanation regarding subletting of

the land.

27. Another fact mentioned in the reply is also to be noticed

that the appellant-society has stated that it is using 4 to 5 Bigha

of land, out of the allotted land, for agriculture purpose, wheres in

the patta issued to it, it is clearly mentioned that the land will only

be used for school and not for any other purpose. At this stage, it

can be useful to note the conditions of allotment mentioned in

patta, which are thus; (i) land may not be utilized other than

school purpose, (ii) land may not be transferred in any manner by

mortgage, sale, gift etc. and (iii) land may not be rented out. The

aforesaid conditions of allotment, mentioned in patta, are quoted

as under :-

ß1@& tehu tsy cgl Ldqy ds flok; nqljs dke es ugh ykosA 2@& jgu csg oD"kh"k oxSjk fdlh izdkj dk bUrdky ugh dj ldksxsA 3@& fdjk;k ugh ns ldksxsA f[kykQ othZ gksus dh gkyr es fcyk lek;r mtj ykxr tehu o bZekjr tIr djyh tkosxk rks dksbZ Åtj ugh dj ldksxsAß

28. From the above facts, it can be presumed that the

appellant-society was aware that what was against it and

accordingly made its submission before the Collector, Udaipur,

therefore, no prejudice is caused to it in defending its case.

29. So far as the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court

rendered in the cases of Shri B.D. Gupta (supra),

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (supra) and UMC

Technologies Private Limited (supra), on which the reliance

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

has been placed on behalf of the appellant-society, are concerned,

there is no quarrel about the law laid down in those judgments to

the effect that the show cause notice showing reasons is required

to be served upon the opposite party but as it is observed that the

appellant-society was in knowledge of the allegation against it and

filed reply to the show cause notice dated 18.07.1980 accordingly,

the said judgments are of no help to the appellant-society.

30. So far as the judgment of this Court rendered in the case

of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (supra), on which

reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant-society, is

concerned, the same is altogether different on the facts because in

the said case no notice was issued to the party and the order was

passed. Hence, the said judgment is also of no help to the

appellant-society.

31. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order has rejected

the contention of the appellant-society that it has invested huge

amount in running the school by raising construction and

providing infrastructure while observing that the said Court while

modifying the initial interim stay order dated 02.09.1985 passed

in SBCWP No.1767/1985 specifically observed that the

appellant-society permitted to repair and raise construction within

6 Bigha of the land but the said construction will be at the risk of

the appellant-society and will not confer any right on the

appellant-society and shall be subject to final decision of the writ

petition.

32. True it is, the permission was granted to the

appellant-society to raise construction on its own risk with a clear

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

indication that it would not confer any right upon the

appellant-society and in such circumstance the contention of the

appellant-society regarding spending huge amount on building and

infrastructure will not tide the case in its favour.

33. Moreover it is settled that equity cannot precede the law

and it has to follow the law. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in its decision dated 21.09.2023 rendered in Celir LLP Vs. Bafna

Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal

Nos.5542-5543 of 2023) has held as under :-

"102. This Court in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd. reported in (2022) 11 SCC 761 after referring to a catena of its other judgements, had held that where the law is clear the consequence thereof must follow. The High Court has no option but to implement the law. The relevant observations made in it are being reproduced below: -

"15.1. In Mishri Lal [BSNL v. Mishri Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 387], it is observed that the law prevails over equity if there is a conflict. It is observed further that equity can only supplement the law and not supplant it.

15.2. In Raghunath Rai Bareja [Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230], in paras 30 to 37, this Court observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 242-

43) "30. Thus, in Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR 1963 SC 1633] (vide para 12) this Court observed: (AIR p. 1637) '12. ... [W]hat is administered in Courts is justice according to law, and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law.'

31. In Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal [(2000) 7 SCC 521] (vide para 4) this Court observed: (SCC p. 522)

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

'4. ... Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law.'

32. Similarly, in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] (vide para 13) this Court observed: (SCC p. 546) '13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law.'

33. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413] (vide para 73) this Court observed: (SCC p. 436) '73. It is now well settled that when there is a conflict between law and equity the former shall prevail.'

34. Similarly, in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577] (vide para 35) this Court observed: (SCC p. 588) '35. In a case where the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the same in a different manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom.'

35. Similarly, in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy [(2003) 1 SCC 123] (vide para 5) this Court observed: (SCC p.

127) '5. Equitable considerations have no place where the statute contained express provisions.'

36. In India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani [(2003) 9 SCC 393] (vide para 7) this Court held that: (SCC p. 398) '7. ... The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed or departed from for equitable considerations.'..."

103. ... ... ...

104. The proposition of law as discernible from the aforesaid decisions is that equity cannot supplant the law. Equity has to follow law, if the law is clear and unambiguous."

34. Though the leaned Single Judge vide impugned order has

also observed that since the land was allotted to the

appellant-society to impart selfless education, but it is charging

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

fees from the students, the purpose of allotting land to it has been

frustrated. We found that in the allotment order of the erstwhile

Mewar Government, no such condition of not charging fees from

the student is there. Of course in the constitution of society one of

the object was to impart selfless education with the stipulation as

far as possible, hence, it cannot be said that the appellant-society

has violated any condition of patta by charging fees from the

students.

35. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the

appellant-society that the appellant-society and the Maharana

Mewar Vidya Mandir are not separate entities and, therefore, the

finding recorded by the Collector, Udaipur regarding

subletting/transferring of the land by the appellant-society to the

Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir is erroneous and the learned Single

Judge has erred in confirming the same.

35.1. To appreciate the said arguments, we have looked into the

agreement executed between the appellant-society and Vidyadan

Trust (Maharana Mewar Educational Trust), Udaipur. It is to be

noticed that the appellant-society as well as the Vidyadan Trust

(Maharana Mewar Educational Trust), Udaipur both are registered

under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and both are separate

Trusts. The agreement was executed between both the Trusts on

29.09.1992, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5A with

SBCWP No.1478/2000. The relevant clauses of the said agreement

reads as under :-

"AND WHEREAS the Society by a Resolution of 16th August, 1992 further decided to approach any other agency

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

or Trust to assist the Society in establishing and running an English Medium Public School, and with its object, decided to approach Vidyadan Trust, which has established and is successfully running Maharana Mewar Public School, one of the best Schools in Udaipur, to advice, assist and render the necessary guidance to constructing, establishing, conducting and effeciently managing the proposed School on the Society's land;

AND WHEREAS on the request of the Society, the Trust has agreed to extend all advice, assistance and technical know-how to the Society to construct, establish and efficiently running and managing the proposed Public School under its supervision and control.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT :

1. Vidyadan Trust shall provide all necessary advice and assistance to the Society to construct, establish and run an English Medium Public School, for the present upto the Senior Secondary level, to be set up on the Society's land.

2. To begin with classes of Pre-primary standard and Lower Primary classes will be started by the Trust in the existing accommodation available, after suitably renovating and furnishing them, from the month of October, 1992.

3. .........

4. .........

5. .........

6. .........

THE TRUST AGREES AND UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING SERVICES :

1. Get the necessary plans for the proper development of the land to obtain the maximum utility out of it, and also plans for the construction of School buildings, laboratories, library and other facilities as and when required with the growth of the School.

2. Get the constructions done as and when required.

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

3. Obtain the necessary furniture, fixtures, equipments, teaching aids, laboratory equipments, books for the library and any other such materials as may be required from time to time for the efficient running of the School and imparting quality education on modern lines to the students.

4. Recruit and appoint qualified staff for the School, fix their remuneration and formulate the terms and conditions of their service, which shall be accepted by the management of the Society's School.

5. Supervise and control the activities of the School and ensure that the quality of education imparted in the School and related student activities and the facilities provided at the School are of high standard expected of an International Public School.

6. Decide on the course of studies and the Text Books and other study materials School to be adopted by the School.

7. Formulate the policies of admission, promotion, detention, expulsion, disciplinary action, punishment etc. of the students, and the same shall be ratified by the Management of the Society's School. However, in case of any difference arising, the same should be settled by mutual consultation.

8. Arrange for the admission of students, maintain their full academic records, collect fees and other dues from students and others and issue proper receipts for them.

9. Work out the fees structure and other charges for services provided in the School.

10. Assist in completing all formalities relating to the School such as obtaining the necessary registration, affiliation from the appropriate authorities, Government Departments, Educational Boards etc.

11. Maintain accounts of all receipt and expenditure of the School, prepare the annual budgets, and the annual accounts and get them audited by qualified Chartered Accountants.

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

NAME OF THE SCHOOL :

The Society agrees that the name of the Society's School shall be "Maharana Mewar Vidya Mandir" and this name shall not be changed."

35.2. The aforesaid clauses of the agreement clearly reflect that

the appellant-society handed over the land, buildings,

infrastructure etc. almost everything to Vidyadan Trust (Maharana

Mewar Educational Trust), Udaipur. It is to be noticed that at the

time of execution of the above agreement, the writ petition

SBCWP No.1767/1985 filed by the appellant-society against the

order dated 30.05.1985 passed by the Collector, Udaipur was

pending consideration before this Court but it appears that no

permission was sought from this Court for executing the said

agreement.

36. Looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the

case particularly the admission of the appellant-society of letting

out some of the allotted land in its reply to the show cause notice

dated 18.07.1980 and the execution of the agreement dated

29.09.1992 by it with Vidyadan Trust (Maharana Mewar

Educational Trust), Udaipur, it is clear that the appellant-society

has violated the conditions of patta and the Collector, Udaipur vide

order dated 15.12.1999 has rightly held that the existence of the

appellant-society is only for the namesake, the same remains on

paper and the allotted land is in control of other Trust, therefore,

the said land is liable to be resumed on account of violation of the

condition Nos.2 and 3 of the patta.

[2023:RJ-JD:31968-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-765/2023]

37. However, it is always open for the Trust, which, at

present, is running the school in the name of Maharana Mewar

Vidya Mandir, to request the respondents - State/Collector to allot

the land, where at present the school is existing, in its favour in

accordance with law.

38. In view of the above discussions, we don't find any merit

in this special appeal writ and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

39. All the pending applications are disposed of.

40. No costs.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.219

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)