Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a dispute concerning the sale of trust property belonging to Ramdas Club Akola, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trust had sought permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act to sell its agricultural land and a plot. After publishing notices and inviting offers, several bids were received, including one from M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills. The trust initially moved to withdraw its application, but later amended it and accepted the offer of M/s Bajrang Oil Mills. The Joint Charity Commissioner, by order dated 15th October 2008, granted permission to sell the property to M/s Bajrang Oil Mills. Nine individuals, who were not trustees or members of the trust, challenged the permission by filing a writ petition before the High Court, claiming to be persons having interest in the trust because they resided adjacent to the property and used it for sports and other activities as per the trust's bye-laws. They alleged irregularities in the conduct of the sale process. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Joint Charity Commissioner's order, holding that the petitioners were persons having interest and that the sale was not properly conducted. The trust and the purchaser preferred separate Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench. The central legal issue was whether the writ petitioners had locus standi to maintain the challenge. The appellants contended that the respondents were not 'persons having interest' as defined under Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, since they were neither trustees nor members, and in fact had attempted to encroach upon the trust property, thereby having an adverse interest. They also argued that the sale was at the highest offer and was completed by registration of sale deeds. The Division Bench, after examining the record, held that the definition of 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) does not extend to such individuals. The court noted that the respondents were not trustees or members and had tried to encroach on the property. Consequently, they could not be considered persons having interest in the trust. The court found that the Single Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition at the behest of such parties. The appeals were therefore allowed, the Single Judge's judgment was set aside, and the Joint Charity Commissioner's order granting permission to sell was restored.
Headnote
A) Trust Law - Locus Standi to Challenge Sale Permission - 'Person Having Interest' - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 2(10), 36 - The respondents, who were neither trustees nor members of the trust and had attempted encroachment on trust property, were held not to fall within the definition of 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) - The Division Bench ruled that the writ petition at their behest was not maintainable, thereby setting aside the Single Judge's order and restoring the Joint Charity Commissioner's permission to sell the property to M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills - Held, only those with a legally recognized interest in the trust can challenge orders under the Act (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, who were not trustees or members of the trust, had locus standi to challenge the Joint Charity Commissioner's order granting permission to sell trust property under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?
Final Decision
Both Letters Patent Appeals allowed; the judgment of the Single Judge is set aside; the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 15-10-2008 granting permission to sell the property to M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills is restored.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Definition of 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Locus standi to challenge permission under Section 36
- Non-members and encroachers do not have standing
- Maintainability of writ petition.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 100
Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 70 of 2010 (both arising out of Writ Petition No. 3265 of 2009)
Mr. K.H. Deshpande, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.D. Lakhe for appellant in LPA No. 49/2010; Mr. C.B. Dharmadhikari for appellant in LPA No. 70/2010; Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for Joint Charity Commissioner; Mr. U.J. Deshpande for respondent no. 3
Ramdas Club Akola (through its alleged President Mr. Ravindra Khandelwal) and M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills (through its Proprietor Shri Bajrang Hanumanprasad Sharma)
Balwant Achyutrao Nanoty (R3), Pundlik Vitthalrao Manmode (R8), Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati (R11)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against Single Judge's order setting aside Joint Charity Commissioner's permission to sell trust property under Section 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought restoration of the Joint Charity Commissioner's order dated 15-10-2008 granting permission to sell trust property.
Filing Reason
Single Judge had allowed writ petition filed by respondents, setting aside the permission on the ground that the respondents were persons having interest and that the sale was irregular.
Previous Decisions
Joint Charity Commissioner granted permission on 15-10-2008; Single Judge of High Court set aside that order in Writ Petition No. 3265/2009.
Issues
Whether the respondents (writ petitioners) had locus standi to challenge the Joint Charity Commissioner's order under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the respondents were not 'persons having interest' under Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act as they were neither trustees nor members of the trust, and had attempted encroachment on trust property; therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Appellants further submitted that the offer from M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills was the highest and sale was completed; the Single Judge erred in interfering with the Joint Charity Commissioner's order.
Respondent no. 3 argued that the Joint Charity Commissioner committed irregularities in the proceedings and that fresh offers could have fetched a higher price; the respondents had interest because they used the trust property for sports and other activities as per bye-laws.
Ratio Decidendi
Only persons who qualify as 'persons having interest' under Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 have the locus standi to challenge an order passed under Section 36 of the Act. Persons who are neither trustees nor members of the trust and who have an adverse interest (such as attempted encroachment) do not fall within this definition. The writ petition at their instance is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.3265 of 2009 (i.e. original respondent nos.1 to 9 in the LPA No.49 of 2010) are neither Trustsees nor the members of the appellant – Trust. In fact, it has come on record that the respondent Nos.1 to 9 had tried to encroach on some portion of the property of the appellant – Trust. In view of this factual position, we are of the view that the original respondent nos.1 to 9 cannot be said to be “persons having interest” in the appellant – Trust as contemplated by the provisions of Section 2 (10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in entertaining the writ petition and allowing it. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The appellant-Trust had filed an application under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act seeking permission to sell its agricultural land and plot. After public notice, offers were received. The application was initially dismissed for want of prosecution on 17-05-2007, but was restored and amended. On 15-10-2008, the Joint Charity Commissioner granted permission to sell to M/s Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills. The respondents (original writ petitioners) challenged this order before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3265/2009, claiming to be persons having interest. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the permission. Aggrieved, the Trust and the purchaser filed these Letters Patent Appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: 2(10), 36
