GOVERDHANBARI DEVSTHAN KOPARGAON Vs. COLLECTOR OF AHMEDNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the 5210 motu notice issued to the Charity Commissioner have reference to the compensation proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the lands belonging to the public trust, being Shri Govardhandhari Devasthan, Kopargaon, bearing survey No. 238 (13 acres) and survey No. 31 (6 acres and 36 gunthas). Section 4 notification was issued on January 9, 1969. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghod Project, Ahmednagar, made an award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, under which compensation as against survey No. 238, being Rs. 72,152, was directed to be credited into the Government Treasury with a rider that proposal for payment of cash allowance be submitted to the Commissioner, Poona Division, Poona, through the Collector, Ahmednagar, by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon. Thus, he virtually seized the amount in favour of the Government and put the same in the custody of the Tahsildar for the purpose of permitting payment of cash allowance to the trustees. He determined the compensation for survey No. 31 at Rs. 25,392, being the two-third value of the market price. This deteimination under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, in this manner, was subjected to reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the trustees and that reference was tried by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmsdnagar.

(2.) By the impugned judgment under appeal at the behest of the trustees, the learned trial Judge rejected the reference, firstly holding that the two-third market price paid for survey No. 31 was proper in view of the Government Resolutions with regard to restricted tenures. With regird to the compensation awarded in respect of the other land, it was found, on the basis of the evidence, that the compensation was adequate, the rate being Rs. 4,800 per acre. It does not appear that any notice as required by section 56-B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was issued to the Charity Commissioner, nor does it appear that the direction with regard to the holding of the compensation money in favour of the Government was properly considered in the light of the law applicable to such matters.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing, because of the admitted position that the lands belonged to the public trust and that the original claimants and the appellants before us were the trustees thereof, we thought it fit to issue a suo motu notice under section 56-B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the Charity Commissioner. A faint submission was made on behalf of the Collector objecting to such issuance of the notice, but, as the decision in the present appeal would show, such an objection is without any merit. In fact, if the compensation is payable to the persons who are the trustees of the trust governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have consigned the compensation money to the Government Treasury, nor could have conferred authority by giving a direction for the purpose of cash allowance payable upon the recommendation of the Tahsildar routed through the Collector. As we see, section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act enjoinpd that in such matters, he had to follow the procedure indicated by sub section (2) of section 31 by deposit of the compensation with the Court competent to hear the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal, admittedly, arises out of the proceedings under section 1; itself and we do not find any impediment in exercise of our jurisdiction in dealing with the direction with regard to the converted property of the public trust as a result of the land acquisition. Only because as a result of the acquisition the corpus is transformed into cash compensation from that of the lands, it does not cease to be the trust property, nor does it cease to be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the original instrument of trust. Thus, we overrule the objection of the learned Government Pleader with regard to the issuance of the notice and hearing the matter in the presence of the Charity Commissioner.