VAIBHAV KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of a businessman of Jain Community resident of Near Jain Bada Mandir, Andar Kila, Vidisha; a Public Interest Litigation, is directed seeking indulgence of this Court in the matter of permission having been granted by respondent No. 2 - Registrar, Public Trust, to respondent no. 3 for sale of part of immovable property owned by respondent no. 3; the Registered Public Trust, vide Annexure P/2. Consequent whereupon, sale -deed has been executed for the said property by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4. It is alleged that respondent no. 2 had accorded permission without application of mind and without objectively formulating his opinion as regards interest of the Trust in the aforesaid transaction of sale, as a result, the Registrar in fact has acted arbitrarily and granted permission under Section 14(1) of the M.P. Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a totally mechanical order. That apart, it is also alleged that consequent upon the aforesaid permission, respondent no. 3 sold the property in question to respondent no. 4 at a throwaway price. According to the petitioner, the property in question, as per the market rate, would have fetched Rs. Sixty Lacs approx., whereas the same has been sold at Rs. Twenty Lacs. There was no resolution of the Trust for making valuation of the property in question nor any such resolution or details were placed before the Registrar -respondent no. 2 seeking permission for sale. Hence, sale is to the grave prejudice and detrimental to the interest of Trust -respondent no. 3. With the aforesaid assertions, it is prayed that the permission granted under Section 14(1) of the Act vide Annexure P/2 by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3 and the sale deed, Annexure P/1, executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 may be set aside.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 3 has filed counter affidavit and has raised preliminary objection that in fact and in effect this writ petition is a misuse of process of law in the name of Public Interest Litigation. The nature of allegation made in the petition and relief sought in relation to cancellation of sale deed, as a matter of fact, are the issues which are squarely covered under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and, therefore, petitioner ought to have filed application before the Registrar to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained therein. That having not been done, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. That apart, it is also submitted that the petitioner under the garb of Public Interest Litigation has filed this petition to question the sale deed only with an oblique motive help facilitate sale of the Trust property to individual persons and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a bonafide Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that the property in question is more than 100 years old, totally in a dilapidated condition and in fact in the state of ruins. The sale in question is not for any commercial exploitation or to any favoured individual person, but it is for construction of temple on a part of the property in question. The property has been sold after obtaining permission from the Registrar under Section 14(1) of the Act to another Trust and not to an individual. No ulterior motive or collateral purpose could be attributed to said bonafide sale, which is for the construction of temple for the benefit of the Trust and Jain Community at large. Under such circumstances, the sale value of the property in question Rs. Twenty Lacs cannot be said to be on lesser side. A resolution was passed on 24/9/2006, wherein respondent no. 3 -Trust has resolved for selling the property in question and likewise there was also a resolution passed in General Meeting on 9/9/2007 by respondent no. 4 for purchase and construction of temple. Both resolutions dated 24/9/2006 and 9/9/2007 are on record as Annexure R/3. It is submitted that as respondent no. 4 has also undertaken to construct the temple at his own cost, under such circumstances, sale consideration of Rs. Twenty Lacs by no stretch of imagination can be said to be less. The projected price of the property in question as indicated in the writ petition in fact is imaginary in nature and cannot be quoted for the nature of property in question, which is nothing but a heap of ruins. With the aforesaid pleadings, it is prayed that petition may be dismissed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS no. 1 and 2 have also filed reply inter alia contending that the application filed by respondent no. 3, upon consideration, was forwarded to Tahsildar for enquiry and opinion. Tahsildar recommended sale and accordingly permission was accorded under Section 14(1) of the Act. That apart, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the value of the property is around Rs. Sixty Lacs, as alleged by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the document as regards value of the property in the area referred and relied by petitioner is the Collector's guidelines for the purpose of stamp duty and the same cannot be said to be indicating market value of the property. Hence, no fault can be found with the respondent no. 2 in the matter of grant of permission under Section 14(1) of the Act. In any case the petitioner never approached respondent no. 2 before or at the time of execution of sale deed Annexure P/1. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the petition is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.