Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Kashinath Trimbak Sane and others against the judgment and order dated 3rd July 2008 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Satara Region, Satara, in Scheme Application No.22 of 2007, which was confirmed by the District Judge, Karad, in Misc. Application (Trust) No.74 of 2011 on 30th November 2011. The respondents, Sau. Bharat Atmaram Suryawanshi and others, had filed the scheme application under Section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, seeking a scheme for better management of the devasthan (trust) known as Bahuleshwar Dev, Bahule, Taluka Patan, District Satara, registered under No.A52/Satara. The Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application ex parte, confirming the scheme and appointing the first Board of Trustees as per the scheme. The appellants claimed they had no knowledge of the proceedings until they received notices from the Revenue Village Officer in November 2008 and August 2008, when the respondents sought to record their names in land records. The appellants then filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. The High Court considered the appeal under Section 72 of the Act, which allows an appeal only on a substantial question of law. The court found that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to frame the scheme, and the appellants failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings. The court noted that the scheme was framed for better management and that the appellants' grievances did not raise a substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the civil application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Charity Law - Scheme Framing - Section 50A(1) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Jurisdiction - The Assistant Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to frame a scheme for better management of a public trust upon application by interested persons. The court upheld the scheme framed for Bahuleshwar Dev, Bahule, as no illegality or perversity was shown. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Order - Natural Justice - The appellants contended that the order was ex parte, but the court noted that notice was issued and the appellants failed to appear. The order was not set aside on merits. (Paras 3-4) C) Appeal - Second Appeal - Section 72 Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Scope - An appeal under Section 72 lies only on a substantial question of law. The court found no such question arose as the concurrent findings were based on evidence. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to frame a scheme under Section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and whether the impugned orders suffered from any illegality or perversity.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The civil application is disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50A(1) of Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Ex parte order validity
- Scope of appeal under Section 72 of the Act
- Requirement of substantial question of law in second appeal
