LAWS(MPH)-2001-2-80

KHANDELWAL TRUST Vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On February 01, 2001
Khandelwal Trust Appellant
V/S
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEMBERS of one Community (Khandelwal) residing at Indore have formed two Public Trusts. One Trust is registered as Shri Khandelwal Trust who is the petitioner herein whereas, the other trust is registered as Smt. Kasturbai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust - the respondent No.3 herein. The object for which these two trusts are formed by the Members of one sect is more or less common.

(2.) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the action of the Indore Development Authority - the respondent No. 1 by which, it rejected the application made by the petitioner for allotment of land for construction of community hall whereas it allowed the application made by the respondent No. 3 -Trust for construction of Community Hall. This is what the IDA resolved in its meeting held on 4.3.1991 (Annexure R -3) while considering the case of both these trusts for allotment of land : .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) HEARD Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Y.I. Mehta, Smt. V. Phaye, Smt. Waghmare, learned counsel and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned decision took me to the correspondence that the petitioner had with the respondent -IDA on their application made for allotment. According to learned counsel, when the IDA has in fact and in principal agreed for allotment of land to the petitioner -Trust then in that view of the matter, the rejection of their application is an act of arbitrary action, if not illegal to say that. Learned counsel urged that the reasons that led to rejection and are now visible when one read the impugned resolution can never be regarded as cogent one and hence it need to be quashed and instead, the allotment of land be made in favour of petitioner rather than in favour of respondent No. 3.