SWAMINARAYAN GURUKUL Vs. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL THRO REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitionerTrust against order dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 [for short, 'the Act'] and confirmed in appeal by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 19.6.2012 in exercise of powers under Section 36(3) of the Act.

(2.) WHILE considering the contention of the petitionerTrust, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons about the property of the Trust fetching higher price if it is disposed off as per the prevailing market rate in the year 2012, for which, a proper advertisement is to be given in a newspaper having wide circulation and after fixing an upset price. Even the Joint Charity Commissioner has also considered the above aspect after scrutinizing the offers in the forms of tenders invited and found that the price fixed for disposal of the plots belonging to the Trust was not sufficient and adequate and, even after comparing the annual statement of rating [jantri], the Trust would resubmit the application which can be considered accordingly. However, surprisingly, the petitionerTrust challenged both orders and the conclusion recorded therein on the ground that the petitionerTrust was in dire financial need to support the education of the children studying in the school and to meet with other such expenses and there was hardly any difference in the offers received pursuant to opening of tenders and the market price prevailing at the relevant point of time. The petitionerTrust was inclined to accept the offer since it was in the interest of the Trust that the income generated from the sale transaction of the plots belonging to the Trust would be utilized for better administration of the Trust and besides the property was encroached and continuance and proliferation of such encroachment would, in future, not fetch a good price and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) . The caselaws, in the context of 'compelling necessity' of the Trust in disposing of the property, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitionerTrust, in the case of Maneklal P. Shah Trustee of Bhuj Panjrapol Trust vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, reported in 2011 (0) GLHELHC 224787, and in the case of Upendrabhai Shtntilal Maniar vs. Sheth Shri Morarjibhai Dhanjibhai Padiya, reported in 2008 (3) GLH 308, have no application in the facts of the present case, in as much as, the authorities below have issued appropriate direction to fetch a higher price of the property. It may be noted that even in the case of Maneklal P. Shah Trustee of Bhuj Panjrapol Trust [supra], the upset price of the property was fixed at Rs.1.5 crore and the property fetched the highest bid at Rs.5.95 crores. Here, in the instant case, it appears that the petitionerTrust has some undisclosed reasons in dealing with the bidders who have offered a very low price to the property in question below the market price.