SADHU BHAGWANDAS DURLABHRAM Vs. UDAYKUMAR H. DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of the appeals relates to an order passed by the High Court arising out of the proceedings initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). These proceedings were initially initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 who are all trustees of M/s Ramgufa Ramji Mandir Trust at Mathawada, Ta Talaja, Gujarat. Their application was based on the ground that the property in question belonged to them and not to the Trust. Their application was allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was challenged u/s. 70 of the Act by one Uday Kumar H. Dave, an Advocate who claimed to be a worshipper of the deity in respect of which the Trust has been set up. The Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed his appeal. He filed a further appeal before the District Court u/s. 72(1) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed. He then filed a further appeal u/s. 72(4) of the Act before the High Court. During the pendency of the first appeal, the said Uday Kumar H. Dave filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for a declaration that the lands in question belonged to the Trust and the amount of compensation deposited before the District Court at Bhavnagar by reason of the acquisition of the disputed land by the Gujarat Maritime Board should either be forfeited to the Government or to the Trust and not be given to Respondents 7 to 18. A prayer was also made to restrain the District Court, Bhavnagar from proceeding with the disbursement of the compensation amount which has been deposited by the Gujarat Maritime Board in respect of the acquired lands.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the lands, prior to their acquisition had been sold by Respondents 7 to 18 to the appellant and the appellants had paid the consideration therefor to Respondents 7 to 18 being amounts of Rs. 4,10,50,000.00 in CA No. 8662 of 2003 and Rs. 56,650.00 in CA No. 8661 of 2003.

(3.) It is also to be noted that a suit had been filed by certain persons in a representative capacity claiming, inter alia, that the property in question belonged to the Trust. That suit was also pending.