Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Ms. Stella A. Machado and others, claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of Anthony Louis Machado, who was allegedly a lessee of a piece of land belonging to respondent no.1 trust (A.H. Wadia Charity Trust) since 1949 at a monthly rent of Rs.116. Anthony died intestate on 30.12.1983, and the petitioners were pursuing several suits for recovery of possession against tenants inducted by Anthony. The respondent no.1 trust obtained an order under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 from the Joint Charity Commissioner on 31.12.2003, sanctioning the sale of the land to respondent no.2 firm. Pursuant to that order, a conveyance deed was executed on 15.6.2004. The petitioners filed an application under section 36(2) of the Act seeking revocation of the sale order, which was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 10.5.2005. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection. The main legal issue was whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the revocation application after the conveyance had been executed. The petitioners argued that the Commissioner erred in relying on a judgment of this Court and that the sale was detrimental to their interests as lessees. The respondents contended that the petitioners had no locus standi as the lease had not been proved and the sale was completed. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioners failed to show any sufficient cause for revocation under section 36(2) and that the order under section 36(1)(a) had been acted upon by execution of the conveyance deed. The court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36(2) - Revocation of Order - The petitioners, claiming as heirs of a lessee, sought revocation of an order under section 36(1)(a) sanctioning sale of trust land. The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the application, holding that the order had been acted upon and a conveyance deed executed. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the petitioners failed to show any sufficient cause for revocation and that the application was filed after the sale was completed. (Paras 2-5) B) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36(1)(a) - Sale of Trust Property - The Charity Commissioner sanctioned the sale of trust land to respondent no.2. Pursuant to the order, a conveyance deed was executed on 15.6.2004. The petitioners, claiming to be lessees, challenged the sale. The court held that once the sale is completed and conveyance executed, revocation under section 36(2) is not maintainable unless fraud or illegality is shown. (Paras 2-5) C) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36(2) - Locus Standi - The petitioners claimed to be heirs of a lessee who died in 1983. The court observed that the petitioners' rights, if any, were subject to pending suits for possession. The petitioners did not establish any subsisting interest in the land at the time of the sale. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application for revocation of the order sanctioning sale of trust land under section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, after the conveyance deed had been executed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 10.5.2005 rejecting the application for revocation under section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Section 36(2) of Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- revocation of order under section 36(1)(a)
- execution of conveyance
- locus standi of lessee's heirs
- limitation for filing revocation application
