Bombay High Court Quashes Charity Commissioner's Permission for Sale of Trust Property Due to Inadequate Price and Non-Compliance with Section 36(1)(a) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Court holds that the price offered was not the market price and the order lacked proper consideration of the property's value.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 116
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a trustee of Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust, challenged an order dated 15/02/2011 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, granting permission to the Trust to sell its property to respondent No.2 under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust owned agricultural land admeasuring 7 hectares 70 ares in Wardha. To raise funds for constructing a Sabha Mandap, the Trust resolved to sell the property and issued advertisements in February 2008. Three offers were received: Rs.4,01,100 per acre from respondent No.2, Rs.2,01,000 per acre, and Rs.1,30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied, the Trust issued fresh advertisements but received no better offers. The Trust then applied to the Charity Commissioner for permission to sell to respondent No.2. The Commissioner granted permission, observing that the Trust had followed proper procedure and the price was adequate. The petitioner argued that the price was far below the market value, which was at least Rs.10-12 lakhs per acre, and that the Commissioner failed to apply his mind. The court framed two issues: whether the price offered was the market price and whether the order met Section 36(1)(a) requirements. The court noted that the Commissioner's order did not discuss the market value or the property's potential for non-agricultural use, despite the property being in a developing area. The court held that the Commissioner must ensure the price is the prevailing market price and that the order lacked proper consideration. Consequently, the court quashed the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Commissioner to determine the market price after hearing all parties and considering the property's potential. The court also directed the Trust to consider selling by public auction or inviting fresh tenders.

Headnote

A) Public Trust - Sale of Trust Property - Section 36(1)(a) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Market Price Determination - The Charity Commissioner must ensure that the price obtained for sale of trust property is the prevailing market price. In this case, the Commissioner failed to consider the potential value of the land for non-agricultural use and the fact that the property was situated in a developing area. The order granting permission was set aside. (Paras 3, 10-14)

B) Public Trust - Duty of Charity Commissioner - Section 36(1)(a) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Adequacy of Consideration - The Commissioner must apply his mind to the adequacy of the price and not merely rely on the trust's resolution. The Commissioner's order did not discuss the market value or the basis for accepting the offer, rendering it unsustainable. (Paras 10-14)

C) Public Trust - Procedure for Sale - Section 36(1)(a) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Tender Process - The trust issued advertisements and received three offers, with the highest being Rs.4,01,100 per acre. However, the Commissioner did not examine whether this was the market price, especially given the property's location and potential. The court held that the sale was not in the interest of the trust. (Paras 4-6, 10-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 for the trust property is the market price and whether the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner meets the requirements of Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 15/02/2011 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, and remanded the matter back to the Charity Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Commissioner was directed to determine the market price of the property after hearing all parties and considering the property's potential for non-agricultural use. The Trust was also directed to consider selling the property by public auction or by inviting fresh tenders.

Law Points

  • Section 36(1)(a) Bombay Public Trust Act
  • 1950
  • market price determination
  • duty of Charity Commissioner
  • public trust property sale
  • adequacy of consideration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 126

Writ Petition No.1801/2011

2011-07-08

R. M. Savant J.

Shri S. V. Sohoni for petitioner, Smt. A. Joshi for respondent No.1, Senior Counsel Shri M. G. Bhangde with Shri V. V. Bhangde for respondent No.2

Datta S/o Vitthalrao Khalkonikar

Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust, Wardha through its President Shri Rajendra B. Lule, and Megh Reality & Developers Private Limited through its Director Shri Omprakash Premadatta Ahuja

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Joint Charity Commissioner granting permission to sell trust property.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 15/02/2011 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, granting permission to sell the trust property to respondent No.2.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, a trustee, alleged that the price offered for the trust property was not the market price and that the Charity Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the requirements of Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Previous Decisions

The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by order dated 15/02/2011, granted permission to the respondent No.1 Trust to sell the property to respondent No.2.

Issues

Whether the price offered by respondent No.2 for the trust property is the market price? Whether the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner meets the requirements of Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950?

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the market price of the property was at least Rs.10-12 lakhs per acre, whereas the offer of Rs.4,01,100 per acre was grossly inadequate. The Commissioner failed to consider the property's potential for non-agricultural use and its location in a developing area. The respondents contended that the Trust followed proper procedure by issuing advertisements and the price offered was the highest received. The Commissioner's order was based on the material on record and should not be interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the Charity Commissioner must ensure that the price obtained for sale of trust property is the prevailing market price. The Commissioner must apply his mind to the adequacy of the price and cannot merely rely on the trust's resolution. The order must reflect consideration of the property's potential value and location.

Judgment Excerpts

The questions which are arise for consideration in the above petition as to whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 herein for the property in question is the market price of the property? And whether the order passed meets the requirements of Section 36 (1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act? The order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner does not discuss the market value of the property. The order does not indicate as to what is the market value of the property and whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 is the market price. In my view, the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is unsustainable and is required to be quashed and set aside.

Procedural History

The respondent No.1 Trust applied to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, for permission to sell its property to respondent No.2. The Commissioner granted permission by order dated 15/02/2011. The petitioner, a trustee, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order. The High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 08/07/2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: Section 36(1)(a)
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Challenging Sugar Price Fixation Under Sugar (Control) Order, 1966; Holds Price Fixation is Legislative in Nature and No Duty to Adjust for Past Losses. Central Government's Power to Fix Maximum Sugar Prices Having Reg...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Workmen's Compensation Case — Insurance Company Liable Despite Dishonour of Cheque for Premium. Dishonour of cheque does not automatically cancel insurance policy; insurer must follow statutory cancellation proced...