{"id":96583,"date":"2011-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-17T08:09:21","modified_gmt":"2017-10-17T02:39:21","slug":"datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                               1\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1801\/2011\n\n     PETITIONER :-                       Datta S\/o Vitthalrao Khalkonikar,\n                                         aged about 55 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                         r\/o Shriniwas Colony, \n                                         Wardha. \n\n                                               ...VERSUS... \n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     RESPONDENTS :-                 1. Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust, \n                          ig           Wardha, through its President, \n                                       Shri Rajendra B. Lule, Advocate, Wardha, \n                                       In front of Indira Market, \n                                       Malgujaripura, Wardha. \n                        \n                                    2. Megh Reality & Developers Private Limited,\n                                       through its Director, \n                                       Shri Omprakash Premadatta Ahuja, \n                                       R\/o Sneh Nagar, Wardha, \n      \n\n\n                                       (At present Nagpur.)\n   \n\n\n\n     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                     Shri S. V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
\n                  Smt. A. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
\n          Senior Counsel Shri M. G. Bhangde with Shri V. V. Bhangde, learned <\/p>\n
                                 counsel for the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                   CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                   RESERVED ON        : 29.06.2011 \n\n\n\n\n\n                                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 08.07.2011\n\n\n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n\n\n     1)       Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and \n\n     heard. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                      2\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     2)       The   above   petition   filed   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     Constitution   of   India   takes   exception   to   the   order   dated   15\/02\/2011 <\/p>\n
     passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by which order the <\/p>\n
     application filed by the respondent No.1-Trust under Sec.36 (1) (a) of the <\/p>\n
     Bombay Public Trust Act was disposed of by granting permission to the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.1-Trust to sell the property in question to the respondent <\/p>\n
     No.2 herein.\n<\/p>\n
     3)<\/p>\n
              The   questions   which   are   arise   for   consideration   in   the   above <\/p>\n
     petition as to whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 herein for <\/p>\n
     the property in question is the market price of the property? And whether <\/p>\n
     the   order   passed   meets   the   requirements   of   Section   36   (1)   (a)   of   the <\/p>\n
     Bombay Public Trust Act? (Hereinafter referred to for brevities sake as the <\/p>\n
     “said Act”).\n<\/p>\n
     4)       The   factual   matrix   involved   in   the   above   petition   can   be   stated <\/p>\n
     thus –\n<\/p>\n
              The petitioner is the trustee of the respondent No.1-Trust and was <\/p>\n
     at the relevant time the Treasurer of the said Trust.  The application under <\/p>\n
     Section 36 (1) (a) of the said Act is in respect of the sale of property <\/p>\n
     bearing Survey No.124 admeasuring 7 hectares and 70 ares, which would <\/p>\n
     be referred to hereinafter as the “said Trust property”, on the ground of <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                    3\/16<\/p>\n
     augmenting  the  facilities for  the  devotees during  the  “Navratra  Utsav”.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent No.1-Trust was desirous of constructing  Sabha Mandap <\/p>\n
     (Hall), which could be used for generating income by letting it out on <\/p>\n
     rent.     Since   funds   were   required   for   construction   of   the   hall,   the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.1-Trust in it’s meeting dated 05\/02\/2008 resolved to sell <\/p>\n
     the said Trust property by issuing an advertisement in the newspapers.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly advertisements were issued on 15\/02\/2008 and 17\/02\/2008 <\/p>\n
     in the local newspapers. In terms of the said advertisement, the last date <\/p>\n
     for submitting the tenders was 02\/03\/2008.  It appears that pursuant to <\/p>\n
     the   said   advertisement,   three   offers   were   received   amongst   which   the <\/p>\n
     offer   of   the   respondent   No.2   was   Rs.4,01,100\/-   per   acre,   whereas   the <\/p>\n
     offers given by the two other bidders were much lower at Rs.2,01,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per acre and Rs.1,30,000\/- per acre. Since the offers received were not to <\/p>\n
     the   satisfaction   of   the   respondent   No.1-Trust,   in   the   meeting   dated <\/p>\n
     03\/03\/2008, it was decided to again issue a fresh advertisement in the <\/p>\n
     local newspapers so as to get better offers. Accordingly, advertisement was <\/p>\n
     issued in the various local newspapers. As per the said advertisement, the <\/p>\n
     last date for submitting the offers was 13\/03\/2008. In terms of the said <\/p>\n
     advertisement, the petitioner and the other two bidders gave their revised <\/p>\n
     offers   on   13\/03\/2008.     The   respondent   No.2   gave   a   revised   offer   of <\/p>\n
     Rs.6,02,500\/-   per   acre   which   was   the   highest.     After   negotiations,   the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                          4\/16<\/p>\n
     respondent   No.2   increased   its   offer   to   Rs.6,10,000\/-   per   acre   and, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   the   total   offer   of   the   respondent   No.2   for   the   said   Trust <\/p>\n
     property was in the sum of Rs.1,16,01,590\/-.  The respondent No.1-Trust <\/p>\n
     accordingly accepted the said offer and entered into an agreement and <\/p>\n
     applied to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for according sanction <\/p>\n
     to the sale of the said Trust property to the respondent No.2 with whom it <\/p>\n
     had entered into an agreement.  The learned Joint Charity Commissioner <\/p>\n
     in turn directed the respondent No.1-Trust to invite objections in respect <\/p>\n
     of   the   said   proposed   sale   to   the   respondent   No.2.   Accordingly,   the <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.1-Trust   issued   a   notice   in   a   local   newspaper   inviting <\/p>\n
     objections.  The petitioner accordingly submitted his objection.  It was the <\/p>\n
     contention of the petitioner that the price offered by the respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
     was much lower than the market price prevailing for the land in question.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner also offered a price of Rs.17,00,000\/- per acre by filing his <\/p>\n
     affidavit.     In   response   to   the   said   affidavit   filed   by   the   petitioner,   the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.1 filed its additional affidavit on 06\/12\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
     5)      The learned Joint Charity Commissioner considered the application <\/p>\n
     filed under Section 36 (1) (a) of the said Act seeking sanction for sale of <\/p>\n
     the   said   Trust   property   to   the   respondent   No.2   herein   and   by   the <\/p>\n
     impugned order dated 15\/02\/2011 disposed of the said application and <\/p>\n
     thereby accorded sanction to the sale of the said Trust property to the <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                   5\/16<\/p>\n
     respondent No.2 herein.  The gist of the reasoning of the learned Charity <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   can   be   found   in   paragraph-23,   which   for   the   sake   of <\/p>\n
     convenience is reproduced herein under.\n<\/p>\n
            “23.    The learned Advocate Shri Chorghade explains that, the  <\/p>\n
            factory of the proposed purchaser situates near the trust land.  <\/p>\n
            The   trust   land   may   come   in   the   area   of   operation   for  <\/p>\n
            development of industrial area.   The proposed purchaser is a <\/p>\n
            businessman and, therefore, wants to invest accordingly, putting  <\/p>\n
            in view, the future prospectus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    This statement on behalf of the proposed purchaser is not  <\/p>\n
            countered at Bar.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     6)     In so far as the objection of the petitioner is concerned, the learned <\/p>\n
     Joint Charity Commissioner observed that the offer of the petitioner of <\/p>\n
     purchasing the land at Rs.17,00,000\/- per acre was an afterthought and <\/p>\n
     without any support and, therefore, cannot be accepted. The learned Joint <\/p>\n
     Charity Commissioner also observed in the order that the price fetched is <\/p>\n
     maximum and the proposal is in the interest of the Trust.   As indicated <\/p>\n
     above, it is this order, which is impugned in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
     7)     Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  rival   contentions, it  would  be <\/p>\n
     apposite to refer to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.2 and <\/p>\n
     the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in the above petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                         6\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     Affidavit in reply :\n\n             i)       In the affidavit in reply dated 07\/06\/2011 filed on behalf of \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     the respondent     No.2 herein i.e. the proposed purchaser, it has been in \n\n<\/pre>\n
     terms stated that the respondent No.2 offered the price that it has offered <\/p>\n
     for the reason that the respondent No.2 is an Associate Company of one <\/p>\n
     M\/s.   Uttam   Galva   Metallics   Limited   and   is   engaged   in   the   activity   of <\/p>\n
     purchasing land  for M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. It has further been <\/p>\n
     stated in the said affidavit that M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. and the <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.2   have   already   purchased   the   surrounding   lands <\/p>\n
     (approximately 250 plus acres) for starting steel manufacturing unit of <\/p>\n
     M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd.  It has further been stated that the project <\/p>\n
     cost of M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. is Rs.1500 Crores and that the <\/p>\n
     parent  company   has  taken   loan   approximately   of  Rs.1200   Crores   from <\/p>\n
     consortium of various banks wherein the State Bank of India is the lead <\/p>\n
     bank. It has further been stated that the construction on the site has been <\/p>\n
     started in July, 2008 and was completed in the 2010.\n<\/p>\n
             ii)      In so far as the objection of the petitioner was concerned, it <\/p>\n
     has been averred that the Joint Charity Commissioner was only required <\/p>\n
     to see whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 on the date when <\/p>\n
     the   tenders   were   invited   was   as   per   the   market   value   or   not.     It   has <\/p>\n
     further   been   averred   that   the   reason   given   by   the   Joint   Charity <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   for   not   considering   the   petitioner’s   offer   is   correct   as <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                     7\/16<\/p>\n
     nothing was brought to his notice by the petitioner to show his bona fides <\/p>\n
     in respect of the said offer.\n<\/p>\n
     Affidavit in rejoinder :\n<\/p>\n
             i)      The   petitioner   has   filed   an   affidavit   in   rejoinder   dated <\/p>\n
     16\/06\/2011 wherein it is contended that the proposed sale in favour of <\/p>\n
     the respondent No.2 has not been carried out in a transparent manner.  It <\/p>\n
     is averred that the respondent No.2 seeks to rely on the offer made by him <\/p>\n
     in   the   first   round   of   advertisement   i.e.   pursuant   to   the   advertisement <\/p>\n
     issued on 15\/02\/2008 and 17\/02\/2008, whereas in fact the revised offer, <\/p>\n
     pursuant   to   the   advertisement   issued   in   March,   2008,   has   been <\/p>\n
     purportedly accepted.  This according to the petitioner is a circumstance, <\/p>\n
     which does not inspire confidence in the whole decision making process.\n<\/p>\n
             ii)  It has  further   been  averred   that  though   the   respondent  No.2 <\/p>\n
     claims that it was purchasing the property for its Associate Company M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd., no document was produced before the Joint <\/p>\n
     Charity Commissioner to show the connection between the petitioner and <\/p>\n
     the said M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
             iii)    The petitioner to the said affidavit in rejoinder has annexed <\/p>\n
     six sale deeds entered into by the said M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
     with six land holders of adjoining lands in the same village wherein the <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                      8\/16<\/p>\n
     said   Trust   property   is   situated   wherein   the   said   M\/s.   Uttam   Galva <\/p>\n
     Metallics Ltd. has agreed to purchase the land at rate of Rs.16,79,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per   acre.     The   copies   of   sale   deeds   as   well   a   tabular   statement   are <\/p>\n
     annexed.  It further averred in the said rejoinder that from the sale deeds <\/p>\n
     dated 30\/01\/2010, it can be seen that the price offered by the respondent <\/p>\n
     No.2 was much lower than the market price.\n<\/p>\n
     Submissions on behalf of the petitioner :\n<\/p>\n
               i)<\/p>\n
                      The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not taken into consideration the <\/p>\n
     relevant  facts  and   has  decided   the  application  on  facts  which   have   no <\/p>\n
     bearing whilst considering an application under Section 36 (1) (a) of the <\/p>\n
     said Act.\n<\/p>\n
               ii)    In   the   teeth   of   the   offer   made   by   the   petitioner   at <\/p>\n
     Rs.17,00,000\/- per acre, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner ought to <\/p>\n
     have given the petitioner a chance to pay the amount in terms of the said <\/p>\n
     offer.\n<\/p>\n
               iii)   The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not adjudicated <\/p>\n
     upon, whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 was the market <\/p>\n
     price.  The learned Joint Charity Commissioner erred in basing his order <\/p>\n
     upon   the   fact   that   the   proposed   purchaser,   who   is   a   businessman,   is <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                         9\/16<\/p>\n
     having his factory near the Trust land when there was no such document <\/p>\n
     produced before him in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
             iv)      In   the   teeth   of   the   sale   deeds   executed   by   the   said   M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. with the land owners of the adjoining lands, <\/p>\n
     which   sale   deeds   are   dated   30\/01\/2010,   the   price   offered   by   the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.2, as can be seen, is 1\/3rd of the price offered by the said <\/p>\n
     M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. to the said land holders, which is near <\/p>\n
     about Rs.17,00,000\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
     Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.2 :\n<\/p>\n
             i)       It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.2   by   the <\/p>\n
     learned Senior Counsel Shri Bhangade that the petitioner being a trustee <\/p>\n
     and having not attended the meetings in which the decision was taken to <\/p>\n
     sell the said Trust property to the respondent No.2 it is now not open for <\/p>\n
     the   petitioner   to   challenge   the   sale   of   the   said   Trust   property   to   the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
             ii)      Though, numerous meetings were held from time to time, <\/p>\n
     the petitioner for the reasons best known to him did not attend the said <\/p>\n
     meetings and did not take any exception to the decision of the respondent <\/p>\n
     No.1-Trust to sell the land to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner <\/p>\n
     is now estopped from questioning the sale to the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                   10\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n             iii)    In a proceeding under Section 36 (1) (a) of the said Act the \n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n<\/pre>\n
     learned Charity Commissioner was only required to consider whether the <\/p>\n
     sale is in the interest of the Trust and whether the price offered for the <\/p>\n
     property in question is the market price on the date of the sale.\n<\/p>\n
             iv)     The sale deeds which are now sought to be relied upon by <\/p>\n
     the petitioner are of January, 2010, whereas the advertisement pursuant <\/p>\n
     to which the offer was made by the respondent No.2 was issued in March <\/p>\n
     2008 and, therefore, the price mentioned in the sale deeds now produced <\/p>\n
     by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration as an indication of <\/p>\n
     the market price which was prevailing in the year 2008.\n<\/p>\n
             v)      The   petitioner   has   not   shown   his  bona   fides  by   not <\/p>\n
     depositing   25%   of   the   amount   of   the   offer,   which   he   had   made   and, <\/p>\n
     therefore, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was right in coming to <\/p>\n
     a conclusion that the offer of the petitioner was an afterthought and that <\/p>\n
     no steps have been taken by the petitioner to show his bona fides. For the <\/p>\n
     said purpose the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 relied <\/p>\n
     upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2011  <\/p>\n
     (3) Mh.L.J. 31 in the matter of Raj Darshan Ventures vs. Joint Charity  <\/p>\n
     Commissioner and others.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                      11\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     Consideration :\n\n<\/pre>\n
             Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned <\/p>\n
     senior   counsel   for   the   respondent   No.2,   I   have   given   my   anxious <\/p>\n
     consideration to the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
             i)       In the instant case, as the impugned order discloses what <\/p>\n
     has weighed with the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is the fact that <\/p>\n
     the proposed purchaser is a businessman, who has got his factory by the <\/p>\n
     side of the said Trust property, which is the subject matter of the sale.\n<\/p>\n
     Without  there   being  any  material  produced   by the  respondent No.2  in <\/p>\n
     that regard.  In so far as whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
     is the market price  or  not the  learned  Joint Charity Commissioner has <\/p>\n
     merely in one line observed that the price offered by the respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
     is maximum and that the proposal is in the interest of the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
             ii)      As regards the sale of trust property and the powers of the <\/p>\n
     learned   Joint   Charity   Commissioner   under   Section   36,   the   Full   Bench <\/p>\n
     judgment of this Court reported in  2007 (4) All MR 100  in the case of <\/p>\n
     Shailesh   Developers   and   Ors.   vs.   Joint   Charity   Commissioner  <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   and   Ors.<\/a>  has   held   that   the   power   of   the   Charity <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   is   not   restricted   either   to   grant   sanction   to   a   particular <\/p>\n
     proposal   of   the   trustees   or   to   reject,   it   is   the   duty   of   the   Charity <\/p>\n
     Commissioner to ensure that the transaction of alienation is beneficial to <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                        12\/16<\/p>\n
     the   Trust   and   its   beneficiaries.     He   has   to   ensure   that   the   property   is <\/p>\n
     alienated to a purchaser or buyer whose offer is the best in all respects.  It <\/p>\n
     is not necessary in every case that the Charity Commissioner has to ensure <\/p>\n
     that the property is sold by the trustees to the person offering highest <\/p>\n
     price or consideration.  What is the best offer in the interest of the Trust <\/p>\n
     will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
             iii)     It is in the said context that the instant matter would have to <\/p>\n
     be   considered,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the   first   round   of <\/p>\n
     tendering the offer made by the respondent No.2 was to the extent of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     4,01,100\/- per acre.  Thereafter within 15 days of the fresh tenders being <\/p>\n
     invited, the respondent No.2 hiked his offer to Rs.6,02,500\/- per acre and <\/p>\n
     in negotiations to Rs.6,10,000\/- per acre.  Obviously, the respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
     was   aware   that   the   price   offered   by   him   of   Rs.4,01,100\/-   per   acre   in <\/p>\n
     February, 2008 was not the market price at the relevant time.  The learned <\/p>\n
     Joint Charity Commissioner, therefore, ought to have considered the said <\/p>\n
     aspect from all its angles especially when there was an objection by the <\/p>\n
     petitioner that the price offered was not the market price.  However, the <\/p>\n
     learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it seems, has mechanically accepted <\/p>\n
     the price offered as the maximum price and has accorded sanction to the <\/p>\n
     sale in favour of the respondent No.2.  The factor which has weighed with <\/p>\n
     the   learned   Joint   Charity   Commissioner,   as   can   be   seen   from   the <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:15 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                    13\/16<\/p>\n
     paragraph No.24 of the impugned order, is not a relevant factor, which <\/p>\n
     was   required   to   be   taken   into   consideration   whilst   considering   an <\/p>\n
     application under Section 36 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
             iv)     It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in his affidavit in <\/p>\n
     rejoinder in the above proceedings has annexed six sale deeds disclosing <\/p>\n
     that the said M\/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. has purchased lands from <\/p>\n
     six adjoining land holders at the rate of Rs.16,79,400\/- to Rs.17,79,600\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per   acre   on   30th  January,   2010.   Though   the   said   sale   deeds   were   not <\/p>\n
     before   the   learned   Joint   Charity   Commissioner,   this   Court   in   its   writ <\/p>\n
     jurisdiction cannot shut its eyes to the said sale deeds.   Admittedly, the <\/p>\n
     petitioner claims to have purchased the land on behalf of the said M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. that the offer of the petitioner at Rs.6,10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     per acre is of the year 2008.   There cannot be such a high amount of <\/p>\n
     appreciation within a period of two years and that also of land in a rural <\/p>\n
     area, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the price <\/p>\n
     offered by the petitioner in the year 2008 cannot be said to be the market <\/p>\n
     price   and,   therefore,   the   said   Trust   property   cannot   be   said   to   have <\/p>\n
     fetched the best market price.\n<\/p>\n
             v)      The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that <\/p>\n
     the price as on 06\/03\/2008 would have to be taken into consideration <\/p>\n
     and in the absence of any better offer received in spite of the two attempts <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:16 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                     14\/16<\/p>\n
     being made by the respondent No.1-Trust, the order of the learned Joint <\/p>\n
     Charity Commissioner according sanction cannot be faulted with, in my <\/p>\n
     view cannot be accepted.  In the teeth of the said six sale deeds which the <\/p>\n
     said   M\/s.   Uttam   Galva   Metallics   Ltd.   has   itself   entered   into   with   the <\/p>\n
     adjoining land holders, the said submission of the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
     petitioner cannot be countenanced.   The fact that the petitioner has not <\/p>\n
     shown   his  bona   fides  by   not   depositing   25%   of   the   amount   whilst <\/p>\n
     objecting to the proposed sale in favour of the respondent   No.2 and has <\/p>\n
     also   not   deposited   the   amount   as   directed   by   this   Court   in   the   above <\/p>\n
     petition by order dated 25\/04\/2011, cannot be a ground to deny reliefs to <\/p>\n
     the petitioner more so, in the teeth of the sale deeds, which have now <\/p>\n
     been produced by the petitioner on record.  It is trite that the transaction <\/p>\n
     in question is to be in the best interest of the trust which encompasses <\/p>\n
     within  itself  the  aspect of  the   property  fetching   the   market value.  The <\/p>\n
     reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 on <\/p>\n
     the  judgment of  a  learned  Single  Judge   of  this Court  in  Raj  Darshan  <\/p>\n
     Ventures vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and others reported in 2011 <\/p>\n
     (3) Mh.L.J. 531, in my view, is misplaced.  The petitioner in the said case <\/p>\n
     had not made any specific offer and secondly the application\/letter was <\/p>\n
     not accompanied by the EMD and the petitioner had merely stated that <\/p>\n
     time to be granted to deposit the amount.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                     15\/16\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n             vi)     In my view, in view of the six sale deeds annexed  by the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     petitioner to his affidavit in rejoinder, the scenario changes dramatically, <\/p>\n
     since the party on behalf of whom the petitioner is purported to be acting <\/p>\n
     i.e. M\/s.Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. has itself purchased the lands from the <\/p>\n
     adjoining land holders though in January 2010 for prices ranging from Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     16,79,400\/- per acre to Rs.16,79,600\/- per acre.   In my view, the said <\/p>\n
     factor   would   be   a   relevant   factor   to   consider   whilst   arriving   at   a <\/p>\n
     conclusion   whether   the   price   offered   by   the   respondent   No.2   was   the <\/p>\n
     market price for the property in question.  In that view of the matter, the <\/p>\n
     impugned order would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside <\/p>\n
     and   the   matter   would   have   to   be   relegated   back   to   the   learned   Joint <\/p>\n
     Charity Commissioner for a de novo consideration in the light of the said <\/p>\n
     six sale deeds produced by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
             vii)    On   remand,   the   learned   Joint   Charity   Commissioner   to <\/p>\n
     decide the application filed by the respondent No.1 within a period of <\/p>\n
     three months of the first appearance of the parties.  The parties to appear <\/p>\n
     before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner  on 25th July, 2011 at 3.00 <\/p>\n
     p.m.   The   learned   Joint   Charity   Commissioner   thereafter   to   fix   the <\/p>\n
     schedule as per his convenience.\n<\/p>\n
             viii)   Needless   to   state   that   the   learned   Joint   Charity <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   would   decide   the   application   on   its   own   merits   and   in <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:16 :::<\/span>
\n      0807wp1801.11.odt                                                                    16\/16<\/p>\n
     accordance   with   law,   uninfluenced   by   the   observations   made   in   the <\/p>\n
     instant order but keeping in mind the well settled principles applicable <\/p>\n
     whilst deciding an application under Sec.36 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     8)       Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   aforesaid   terms,   with <\/p>\n
     parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:28:16 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 0807wp1801.11.odt 1\/16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1801\/2011 PETITIONER :- Datta S\/o Vitthalrao Khalkonikar, aged about 55 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, r\/o Shriniwas Colony, Wardha. …VERSUS… RESPONDENTS :- 1. Shriram Mandir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDatta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3356,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011"},"wordCount":3356,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011","name":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T02:39:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/datta-vs-shriram-mandir-deosthan-trust-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Datta vs Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust on 8 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}