SAM SAROSH BHACCA Vs. P.V. KAKADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent oh 6th November, 1989 on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short 'the said Act') for revocation of the 1st Respondent's order according sanction to sell an immovable property admeasuring Order 47 Acres (20473.20 sq. ft.) bearing C.T.S. No. 1 -B and situate at Moledina Road, Pune. within the limits of Pune Cantonment (for short, 'the Trust Property').

(2.) THE petitioners are trustees of Surat Parsi Panchayet, a Public Trust registered at Surat in the State of Gujarat. The petitioners claim to be beneficiaries under the Deed of Trust in respect of Seth Pallanjee Patel Educational Charity Trust, (for short, 'the said Trust') a Public Trust registered under the said Act. The said Trust owned the Trust property. Pursuant to the sanction accorded by the 1st Respondent as per the order passed on 25th March, 1988 under the provisions of Sections 36(1)(a) of the said Act, the Trustees of the said Trust, by the Sale Deed dated 12th April, 1988, sold and conveyed the Trust property to the 7th Respondent who has been a partner in the firm of M/s. Darabjee and Co., tenants at the Trust property, for the consideration of Rs. 9,75,000/ - on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said Sale Deed is registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Trust Property has been transferred to the name of the 7th Respondent, The Trust Property ceased to be the property belonging to the said Trust and the 7th Respondent perfected his title thereto.

(3.) IN the said Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 36(2) of the said Act, the Trustees of the said Trust raised the preliminary point of jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent to entertain and decide the same. In the facts as aforesaid, the Trustees contended that the Trust Property ceased to be a property of the said Trust and the amount of consideration for sale received by the said Trust invested in Unit Trust of India became the property of the said Trust. It was further contended that the 7th Respondent, after having perfected his title to the Trust property, had created third party interest in respect thereof in favour of the 8th Respondent, who had applied to the Government of India to convert the same as a free -hold property and sanction of the President of India was accorded to withdraw the said property from the management of Cantonment Board and transfer the same as free -hold in the name of the 7th Respondent on payment of Rs. 54,31,525/ - as occupancy fee to transfer as free -hold. The said amount was paid and the said property was converted into freehold. In support of their submission before the 1st Respondent that the said property on being sold and transferred to the 7th Respondent had ceased to retain as a Trust property and that the power of revocation of sanction under Section 36(2) of the said Act has to be exercised only when the sanction remains alive and does not get Itself merged into sale, the Trustees of the said Trust had, before the 1st Respondent, put reliance on the case of Shri Mahadeo Deosthan Wadali and Ors. v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors., in 1989 MLJ 269.