Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4546/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4546 of 2010
=========================================================
IBRAHIM
ADAM UMARJI BAPU - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BOMBAY
PATEL WELFARE SOCIETY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARESH J TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MI MERCHANT for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 20/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
has challenged an order dated 29th January 2010 passed by
the Joint Charity Commissioner, Surat. By the said order, Misc.
Application No.26/09 filed by the present petitioner came to be
dismissed.
In
brief, facts are as follows:
The
petitioner was the owner of land bearing revenue survey No.84/1 and
87 of village Vejalpur, Taluka Bhrauch. By an agreement dated 29th
April 2002, he agreed to sell such land to respondent No.1 Trust.
Sale deed was executed on 29.3.2003 and the same was duly
registered.
On
the premise that the said land was sold at a concessional price with
a specific purpose of constructing residential units for riot
affected people during the post Godhra riots of February 2002 and on
the allegation that respondent No.1 Trust was deviating from the
said purpose, the petitioner filed the above-mentioned Misc.
application No.26/09 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Surat
praying that the Trust be directed not to put the land to any use
other than for which the same has been sold to it. This application
came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.1.2010. The
Joint Charity Commissioner in the said order observed that the land
was sold for a consideration of Rs.38 lacs which was paid by the
Trust to the petitioner. Though there is a mention in the agreement
to sell about the land being sued for construction of residential
units for the riot affected persons, in the ultimate sale deed, no
such condition is incorporated. To construct such houses is not one
of the objects of the Trust. No such direction therefore can be
issued.
Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the land was sold at a concessional
price on the understanding that the same will be used for
constructing houses for riot affected persons and the Trust is
deviating from the said understanding. He further submitted that the
Joint Charity Commissioner committed a grave error in holding that
such purpose would not be covered under the objects of the Trust.
On
the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner had approached the court Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Bharuch by filing Regular Civil Suit No.27/09 challenging the sale
deed. Such suit was, however, unconditionally withdrawn which was
permitted by the court on 29.7.2010. Counsel further stated that
presently there is no proposal to sell the land. The Trust
undertakes to use the same for the objects of the Trust and for no
other purposes.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
document on record, I am of the opinion that the Joint Charity
Commissioner committed no error in dismissing the application of
the petitioner. Though one of the conditions of the agreement to
sell was that the land will be used for constructing houses for riot
affected persons, admittedly in the final sale deed executed between
the parties, there is no such condition. The petitioner had received
sale consideration of Rs.38 lacs. Neither in the agreement to sell
nor in the sale deed, there is any indication to believe that such
consideration did not reflect the market value or that any
concession was given for a specific purpose. Additionally, I also
find that the petitioner had filed civil suit challenging the sale
deed which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally. Considering
these aspects of the matter, prayer of the petitioner that the Trust
must use the land only for the purpose of constructing houses/flats
for the riot affected persons cannot be granted. In that view of
the matter, whether construction of such houses for riot affected
persons would be covered under the object clauses of the Trust need
not be decided.
In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
Presence
of respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Court pursuant to the previous
orders of the Court is noted.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top
