AMBADEVI SANSTHA & ORS. versus JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS. on 25 September 2018

484

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 11 S.C.R.

A SHRI AMBADEVI SANSTHA & ORS.

v.

JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 9936 of 2018)

BSEPTEMBER 25, 2018

[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950:

s.36 – Sale of Trust property – Power of Charity CommissionerC– Application seeking permission to sell Trust property, afteraccepting earnest money – Objections by two persons stating thatthey were ready to purchase the property at much higher price –Objection also by newly elected body of Trust stating that it did notintend to sell the properties – Despite the objections, CharityDCommissioner granted permission to sell – Writ petition – Dismissedby High Court – On appeal, held: While disposing of Trust property,Charity Commissioner has to consider interest, benefit and protectionof Trust – Action of Trust seeking permission to sell after acceptingearnest money was improper, illegal and impermissible – Priorsanction was necessary to create any right in the properties – SuchEillegal transaction could not have been sanctioned – It wasimpermissible and violative of intendment of the provisions containedin s.36.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtFHELD: 1. The Charity Commissioner has to be objectivelysatisfied that there is necessity to dispose of the property in theinterest of public Trust. Three classic requirements have to beconsidered by the Charity Commissioner i.e., the interest, benefitand protection of Trust. Sale should be free from suspicion andreserved price should be fixed after ascertaining the market value.GIn case the Charity Commissioner accepts the necessity ofalienating the trust property, the trustees cannot insist that theproperty should be sold only to a person of their choice, thoughthe offer given by the person may not be the best offer. The H

property may be vested in the trustees, but the vesting is for thebenefit of the beneficiaries. Best available offer should beaccepted in the case of sale.[Paras 9, 11 and 13] [490-H; 491-A;492-A; 494-D-E]

Cyrus Rustom Patel v. Charity CommissionerMaharashtra 2017 (13) SCALE 44 : [2017] 9 SCR277 ; Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,(1986) 3 SCC 391 : [1986] 1 SCR 989 ; R. VenugopalaNaidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Chairities (1989) 2 Suppl.SCC 356 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 760 ; Bhaskar LaxmanJadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh EducationSociety (2013) 11 SCC 531 : [2012] 11 SCR 767 –relied on.

2. The action of the Trust seeking permission to sell afteraccepting the earnest money was wholly improper andimpermissible. The transactions could not have been finalisednor possession could have been handed over before filingapplication to Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36 ofthe Act of 1950. Prior sanction was necessary to create any rightin the properties. [Para 16] [495-B]

3. It was not open to the Joint Charity Commissioner topermit the sale on the ground of receipt of earnest money inillegal manner. Before permission to sell, no such agreementcould have been entered into. The same indicated predispositionof Trust to sell it in illegal manner. The valuation report fromTalathi was based on ipse dixit indicated the value of the land asRs.8,000/- per acre. The offer could not have been accepted inview of the available higher offers. The Joint CharityCommissioner has failed to protect the interest of the Trust.[Para 16] [495-E-F]

4. Mere statement by the Trust that earnest money wasreceived from prospective purchasers of house in the year 1990,thus, it should be sold to them, could not be said to be a legallypermissible approach. It was not legally permissible to receiveearnest money or to create any interest without grant of priorpermission to sale. Thus, no equitable consideration could have A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aarisen in favour of purchasers by the payment of earnest moneyin the year 1990. This kind of illegal transaction could not havebeen sanctioned by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It was whollyimpermissible and violative of intendment of the provisionscontained under Section 36 of the Act of 1950. [Paras 17 and18][495-G-H; 496-B]B

5. The offers were invited for land in 1994 and theapplications were filed in the year 1997-98 for grant of permissionto sell the properties of the Trust. The prices of 1994, thus,could not have been considered to be the value as on the dateCthe permission was applied for. Apart from that, no serious effortswere made by the Joint Charity Commissioner to ascertain thevalue of the properties in the years 1990, 1994 or 1998. No effortwas made to ascertain the valuation of the house and no reservedprice was fixed, thus, the sale of the properties was whollyimpermissible. The Joint Charity Commissioner has alsoDobserved that it was not for him to consider the effect of enormousdelay in approaching for grant of permission. No such delayedapplication could have been entertained to validate illegaltransaction. The Joint Charity Commissioner has failed toconsider the interest, benefit and the protection of the propertyEof the Trust. The permission to sale with respect to agriculturallands as well as the house was granted illegally. [Paras 16 and19][495-C-D; 496-C-D]

6. When there was a dispute between old and new body,the Joint Charity Commissioner was required to be on the guardFand in view of the objection raised by 15 Trustees by presentingthemselves before the Joint Charity Commissioner that Trustproperties should not be sold, the Joint Charity Commissionercould have waited and should have ascertained the genuinenessof the objection and need for sale of properties and whether salewas in the interest of Trust. [Para 20] [496-G-H]G

7. The Trust is directed not to fritter away with theproperties in the manner in which it has been done. In futurealso, let the properties of the Trust and its legacy be protectedand guarded and it should not be sold away in the manner as hasbeen done in the present case. [Para 21] [496-H; 497-A]H

8. It was contended on behalf of purchasers that they havemade the land cultivable by spending the amount and have levelledit also. As a matter of fact, under an illegal sale, they have enjoyedthe properties for more than two decades. It was whollyimpermissible and they have earned more than the value of theland as in the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation is grantedin the absence of exemplar sale evidence on the basis of usufructof 10 years. They have enjoyed the properties for more than twodecades, thus there is absolutely no equity in their favour andthey are not entitled to retain the possession of the same.[Para 22] [497-B-C]

Case Law Reference

A

B

C

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9936of 2018.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2013 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ PetitionNo. 867 of 1999

WITH

F

Civil Appeal Nos.9937 and 9938 of 2018.

R. Basant, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs. Rishabh Sancheti,Ms. Padma Priya, Anup Gilda, Anchit Bhandari, P. V. Saravana Raja,Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Kotwal, Raghunatha Sethupathy, GaganNarang, Ms. Aashiya Ghose, Nirnimesh Dube, Shashibhushan P.Adgaonkar, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for theappearing parties.

G

[2018] 11 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The appellant-Shri Ambadevi Sanstha,a registered Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950(hereinafter referred as the “Act of 1950”), has filed the instant appealsagainst the judgments and orders dated 3.5.2013 and 10.5.2013 passedBby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the writ petitionsfiled by the appellant herein and confirming the order dated 8.10.1998 ofthe Joint Charity Commissioner with respect to sale of the properties ofthe Trust. The Trust had been permitted to execute sale deeds of fieldSurvey No.270/A/1 of village Khar, Talegaon, admeasuring 11 acresand 28 gunthas and field Survey No.11 of Chandpur, admeasuring 4Cacres and 8 gunthas to Mr. J.M. Karwa, field Survey No.202 of Khar,Talegaon, admeasuring 16 acres to Mr. Manish Jaikishore Karwa and15 acres and 33 gunthas out of field Survey No.202 of Khar, Talegaon toShri Ashish Jaikishore Karwa and 15 acres and 15 gunthas from SurveyNo.12 of Chandpur to Shri Girish Jaikishore Karwa at the rate ofDRs.7,651/- per acre.

2. The permission had also been granted by Joint CharityCommissioner to sell the immovable properties belonging to Trust i.e.,House No.210, Plot No.228, Sheet No. 92-A, admeasuring 174.8 sq.meters situated in Ward No.15 in Bhaji Bazar Mohalla at Amravati forERs.3,11,000.

3. Permission had also been granted by the Joint CharityCommissioner to sell House No.998 in Ward No.59 Taluka Bedmaru,District Amravati for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).

4. The erstwhile Secretary of the old body of Trust had applied toFthe Joint Charity Commissioner for grant of permission to sell theproperties of Trust. At least two persons had raised objections beforethe Joint Charity Commissioner that they were ready to purchase theland at a much higher price up to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.11,000/- per acre.The newly elected body of the Trust approached the Joint CharityGCommissioner and 15 trustees stated that Trust does not want to sell theproperties. Despite the objection, the Joint Charity Commissioner hadgranted permission to sell the properties. Aggrieved thereby, the writpetitions were filed before the High Court by the Trust. The High Courtvide impugned judgments and orders has dismissed the writ petitions.Hence, the appeals have been preferred.H

5. The Trust has raised the ground that Joint Charity Commissionerdid not act as per intendment of Section 36 of the Act of 1950. The JointCharity Commissioner has failed to observe that when the Trustees havestated on behalf of Trust that the properties should not be sold, the JointCharity Commissioner ought not have passed the order directing sale ofthe properties. The principles governing exercise of power under Section36 had not been adhered to. There was no necessity to sell the Trustproperties. Apart from that, the permission for sale of properties for ameagre amount was not at all in the interest of the Trust. The objectionswere rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner for no good reason.The High Court has also committed illegality in dismissing the writ petitions.

6. It was contended on behalf of respondents that permission wasgranted to sell properties in the interest of the Trust as the Trust was nothaving proper income. The land is situated at a distance of 25 kms fromAmravati. Three out of four lands are situated about 5 kms away fromthe locality of Khar Talegaon. The Trust wanted to construct a hospital.The Trust was in dire need of money and had decided to invite tenderson 1.6.1994 by advertisement for the sale of land and only one offerfrom Mr. Naresh Laxmanrao Bhatkar was received for purchase ofland admeasuring 15 acres 15 gunthas at Chandpur at the rate ofRs.4,500/- per acre. However, the said offer was not accepted by theTrust in the meeting dated 9.8.1994. Thereafter, second advertisementwas published in the local newspapers in November and December,1994. Varying offers for land between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per acrewere received. Late Mr. Jaikishore Karwa submitted offer ofRs.7,651/- per acre for purchase of the entire land of the Trust i.e., 63acres 4 gunthas, whereas the offer of Mr. M.K. Lakde was forRs.9,000/- per acre for certain piece of land i.e., 11 acres 28 gunthas.The offer of Late Mr. Jaikishore Karwa, husband of respondent no.2-Smt. Tarabai, was accepted. The entire land was sold as indicated byMr. Jaikishore Karwa in the names of several persons. The Trust in itsmeeting dated 13.3.1995 passed a resolution and accepted earnest moneyalso.

7. It was further contended on behalf of respondents that theprice offered was proper and valuation report was called from Talathiwith respect to the land in question. Talathi had indicated that the marketvalue of the land was Rs.8,000/- per acre at Khar Talegaon andRs.5,000/- per acre at Chandpur, at the time of issuance of advertisement AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain the year 1994. The Joint Charity Commissioner has considered thevaluation report of the Talathi and the offer made by Mr. JaikishoreKarwa was found to be proper.

8. It was contended by the respondents that Joint CharityCommissioner did not grant permission in a mechanical way. TwoBobjectors namely Mr. Vinod Tank and Mr. Vijay Jaiswal had submittedtheir higher offers before the Joint Charity Commissioner during thependency of the application. Mr. Vinod Tank had neither participated inthe tender process. It was not proper for him to submit a higher offeronce the earnest money had been paid. The offer of Mr. Vinod Tankwas rightly rejected. Similarly, the offer made by Mr. Narayan prasadCJaiswal and Mr. Shankarlal Jaiswal of Rs.25,000/- per acre after 2 ½years from the date of acceptance of earnest money by the Trusts, wasalso rightly rejected. The Joint Charity Commissioner did not allow theobjection raised by 15 newly added trustees as there was a disputebetween old and the new trustees. The land was sold by the previousDbody of the Trust, as such the objection raised by the new body wasrightly rejected. The Trust, in fact, had not passed any resolution dated27.9.2018 before the decision was rendered by the Joint CharityCommissioner, not to sell the properties. Resolution dated 27.9.1998was not submitted before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Trusteesdid not pray before the Joint Charity Commissioner to withdraw theEapplication filed for grant of permission to sell the properties. The Trustdid not file the aforesaid resolution dated 27.09.1998 even before theHigh Court. No meeting was held on the aforesaid date. It was alsocontended on behalf of respondents that Trust has filed false andfabricated affidavit dated 18.11.1997, which was not filed by the TrustFbefore the Joint Charity Commissioner. The objectors Mr. Vinod Tankand others have not approached the High Court against the order ofJoint Charity Commissioner. In other appeals also, it was contendedthat order of Joint Charity Commissioner was appropriate and inaccordance with law.

G9. This Court has considered the duty of a Charity Commissionerunder Section 36 of the Act of 1950 in the recent decision in CyrusRustom Patel v. Charity Commissioner Maharashtra, (2017) 13SCALE 44. This Court has observed that three classic requirementshave to be considered by the Charity Commissioner i.e., the interest, H

benefit and protection of Trust. The Charity Commissioner has to beobjectively satisfied that there is necessity to dispose of the property inthe interest of public Trust. The power of Charity Commissioner extendsto inviting offers from members of public and can also direct the trusteesto sell or transfer the trust property to a person whose bid or quotation isthe best.

10. In Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,(1986) 3 SCC 391, it was observed that there has to be full applicationof mind while granting permission to sell by the competent authority andthe disposal of public property should normally be done by public auction.The public-minded citizens have to show exemplary vigilance and theproperty of religious and charitable institutions or endowment must bejealously protected. Property should be sold by public auction after fixingreserve price. This Court observed:

“10. We cannot conclude without observing that property of suchinstitutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It mustbe protected, for, a large segment of the community has beneficialinterest in it (that is the raison d’etre of the Act itself). Theauthorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only bemost alert and vigilant in such matters but also show awarenessof the ways of the present day world as also the ugly realities ofthe world of today. They cannot afford to take things at their facevalue or make a less than the closest-and-best-attention approachto guard against all pitfalls. The approving authority must be awarethat in such matters the trustees, or persons authorized to sell byprivate negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret orinvisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers atthe cost of the concerned institution. Those who are willing topurchase by private negotiations can also bid at a public auction.Why would they feel shy or be deterred from bidding at a publicauction? Why then permit sale by private negotiations which willnot be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to publicsuspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? Andcare must be taken to fix a reserve price after ascertaining themarket value for the sake of safeguarding the interest of theendowment.With these words of caution we close the matter.”

(emphasis supplied)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A11. In R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Chairities,1989 Supp (2) SCC 356, this Court has reiterated that sale should befree from suspicion and reserved price should be fixed after ascertainingthe market value. This Court has observed:

“13. The subordinate court and the High Court did not go into theBmerits of the case as the appellants were non-suited on the groundof locus standi. We would have normally remanded the case fordecision on merits but in the facts and circumstances of this casewe are satisfied that the value of the property which the trust gotwas not the market value. Two persons namely S.M. MohamedYaaseen ad S.N.M. Ubayadully have filed affidavit offering Rs.C9 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively for these properties. Insupport of their bona fides they have deposited 10 per cent of theoffer in this Court. This Court in Chenchu Ram Reddy v.Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 3 SCC 391, has held thatthe property of religious and charitable endowments or institutionsDmust be jealously protected because a large segment of thecommunity has beneficial interest therein. Sale by privatenegotiations which is not visible to the public eye and may evengive rise to public suspicion should not, therefore, be permittedunless there are special reasons to justify the same. It has furtherbeen held that care must be taken to fix the reserve price afterEascertaining the market value for safeguarding the interest of theendowment.”

12. In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer KakasahebWagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531, this Court took note ofthe fact that Trustees and petitioners had been indulging in a flip-flopFand taking advantage of the absence of any clear-cut statutory measuresdesigned to prevent abuse of the process of law. The CharityCommissioner was justified in rejecting the application for permission tosell for two reasons, firstly since the Trustees were not voluntarily sellingthe Trust land and secondly, in the given circumstances, the sale transactionGwas not for the benefit and in the interest of the Trust. It was furtherobserved that lack of bonafide of trustees could not have been overlookedby the High Court. Due to passage of time, the value of the Trust landhad increased considerably and it was necessary to have made effortsfor obtaining maximum price from the open market. This Court observed:

H

“53. In Mehrwan Homi Irani v. Charity Commr., (2001) 5 SCC305, it was categorically held that the Charity Commissioner, whilegranting sanction under Section 36 of the Act, must explore thepossibility of getting the best price for the trust properties. Inkeeping with this, the Charity Commissioner was directed to issuea fresh advertisement for leasing out the trust property and“formulate and impose just and proper conditions so that it mayserve the best interests of the Trust.” The observations of thisCourt and directions given are as follows:

“9.... In the best interests of the Trust and its objects, we feel itappropriate that Respondents 2 to 4 should explore the furtherpossibility of having agreements with better terms. The objects ofthe Trust should be accomplished in the best of its interests.Leasing out of a major portion of the land for other purposes maynot be in the best interests of the Trust. The Charity Commissionerwhile granting permission under Section 36 of the Bombay PublicTrusts Act could have explored these possibilities. Therefore, weare constrained to remit the matter to the Charity Commissionerto take a fresh decision in the matter. There could be freshadvertisements inviting fresh proposals and the proposal of the5th respondent could also be considered. The CharityCommissioner may himself formulate and impose just and properconditions so that it may serve the best interests of the Trust. Wedirect that the Charity Commissioner shall take a decision at theearliest.”

13. In Cyrus Rustom Patel (supra), the Court observed thatprevious sanction of the Charity Commissioner has to be obtained forsale of the Trust property:

“24. It is apparent from the provisions of Section 36 that sale,exchange or gift of any immovable property or lease, extendingbeyond ten yearsin the case of agricultural land, or for a periodexceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or abuilding, belonging to a public trust shall not be valid withoutprevious sanction of the Charity Commissioner.

25. The power to grant sanction has to be exercised by the CharityCommissioner, taking into consideration three classic requirements A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ai.e. “the interest, benefit, and protection”of the Trust. Theexpression that sanction may be accorded subject to such conditionsas Charity Commissioner may think fit under Section 31(1)(b)and Section 36(1)(c). The Charity Commissioner has to beobjectively satisfied that property should be disposed of in theinterest of public trust; in doing so, he has right to impose suchBconditions as he may think fit, taking into account aforesaid tripleclassic requirements. It is also open to the Charity Commissioner,in exercise of power of Section 36(2) of the Act, to revoke thesanction, given under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 36 of the Act,on the ground that the sanction had been obtained by fraud orCmisrepresentation or those material facts have been suppressedwhile obtaining sanction. The intendment of the revocation provisionis also to sub-serve the interest, benefit, and protection of theTrust and its property.”

(emphasis supplied)

D

The Court has also observed that the trustees hold the propertyfor the benefit of the beneficiaries. In case the Charity Commissioneraccepts the necessity of alienating the trust property, the trustees cannotinsist that the property should be sold only to a person of their choice,though the offer given by the person may not be the best offer. TheEproperty may be vested in the trustees, but the vesting is for the benefitof the beneficiaries. Best available offer should be accepted in the caseof sale.

14. When we consider the order passed by the Joint CharityCommissioner on 8.10.1998 in the instant case, several applications wereFdecided by common order. The Joint Charity Commissioner noted thatobjection was raised by 15 newly elected Trustees not to sell theproperties. It was incumbent upon the Joint Charity Commissioner toascertain the proper valuation of the properties. In the case of timebarred transaction, it was held that it was not for the Joint CharityGCommissioner to reject the offer on the ground that transaction hadbecome time barred, but it was for the Civil Court to consider the saidaspect for transaction entered into in 1990 and 1994 for which theapplications for grant of permission were filed in 1997/1998.

15. The reserved price of various properties was also not fixed inthe instant matter and the Joint Charity Commissioner has failed toconsider what was the actual price as on the date of grant of permissionand when transactions were entered into. The permission to sell theproperties had been granted in mechanical manner ignoring illegality oftransactions. The action of the Trust seeking permission to sell afteraccepting the earnest money was wholly improper and impermissible.The transactions could not have been finalised nor possession could havebeen handed over before filing application to Joint Charity Commissionerunder Section 36 of the Act of 1950. Prior sanction was necessary tocreate any right in the properties.

16. The offers were invited for land in 1994 and the applicationswere filed in the year 1997-98 for grant of permission to sell the propertiesof the Trust. The prices of 1994, thus, could not have been consideredto be the value as on the date the permission was applied for. Apartfrom that, no serious efforts were made by the Joint CharityCommissioner to ascertain the value of the properties in the years 1990,1994 or 1998. After the advertisement inviting offer was issued in respectto lands, it is apparent that the offer of Mr. M.K. Lakde was forRs.9,000/- per acre for a part of land, nonetheless it was much morethan the value accepted by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Merely onthe ground that Trust had accepted the earnest money from Mr. JaikishoreKarwa of Rs.21,000/-, no equity was created in his favour to purchasethe property. It was not open to the Joint Charity Commissioner to permitthe sale on the ground of receipt of earnest money in illegal manner.Before permission to sell no such agreement could have been enteredinto. The same indicated predisposition of Trust to sell it in illegal manner.The valuation report from Talathi was based on ipse dixit indicated thevalue of the land as Rs.8,000/- per acre. The offer could not have beenaccepted in view of the available higher offers. The Joint CharityCommissioner has failed to protect the interest of the Trust.

17. Mere statement by the Trust that earnest money was receivedfrom prospective purchasers of house in the year 1990, thus, it should besold to them, could not be said to be a legally permissible approach. Itwas not legally permissible to receive earnest money or to create anyinterest without grant of prior permission to sale. Thus, no equitableconsideration could have arisen in favour of purchasers by the paymentof earnest money of Rs.1,60,000/- in the year 1990.

AB

CDEF

G

H

A

A18. The Joint Charity Commissioner had also observed in its orderthat if the request of Trust to sell the land to prospective purchaser wasrejected, the Trust was likely to be forced to face litigation at the instanceof the prospective purchasers as they claimed to be in possession of theland for which they have paid the earnest money. This kind of illegaltransaction could not have been sanctioned by the Joint CharityBCommissioner. It was wholly impermissible and violative of intendmentof the provisions contained under Section 36 of the Act of 1950.

19. No effort was made to ascertain the valuation of the houseand no reserved price was fixed, thus, the sale of the properties waswholly impermissible. The Joint Charity Commissioner has also observedCthat it was not for him to consider the effect of enormous delay inapproaching for grant of permission. No such delayed application couldhave been entertained to validate illegal transaction. The Joint CharityCommissioner has failed to consider the interest, benefit and the protectionof the property of the Trust. The permission to sale with respect toDagricultural lands as well as the house was granted illegally.

20. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the questionthat newly elected body of the Trust had opposed the sale of the Trustproperties by old trustees. When there was such a dispute between oldand new body, the Joint Charity Commissioner was required to be on theEguard and in view of the objection raised by 15 Trustees by presentingthemselves before the Joint Charity Commissioner that Trust propertiesshould not be sold as recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner couldhave waited and should have ascertained the genuineness of the objectionand need for sale of properties and whether sale was in the interest ofTrust. The High Court had also recorded that the resolution was passedFon 27.9.1998 not to proceed with sale. Though, it was disputed that itwas not actually passed. Be that as it may. Fact remains that Trusteesthemselves presented before the Joint Charity Commissioner beforearguments were heard and, in the circumstances, it was not at all properor justified to sell the properties of the Trust. No necessity for sale ofGthe properties was made out. Thus, the sale of the Trust properties waswholly uncalled for.

21. In view of the above, we direct the Trust not to fritter awaywith the properties in the manner in which it has been done. In futurealso, let the properties of the Trust and its legacy be protected and guarded H

and it should not be sold away in the manner as has been done in thepresent case. We allow the civil appeals and set aside the judgmentsand orders passed by the High Court and that of the Joint CharityCommissioner. Transactions of sale are annulled.

22. It was contended on behalf of purchasers that they have madethe land cultivable by spending the amount and have levelled it also. Asa matter of fact, under an illegal sale, they have enjoyed the propertiesfor more than two decades. It was wholly impermissible and they haveearned more than the value of the land as in the Land Acquisition Act,the compensation is granted in the absence of exemplar sale evidenceon the basis of usufruct of 10 years. They have enjoyed the propertiesfor more than two decades, thus there is absolutely no equity in theirfavour and they are not entitled to retain the possession of the same.Let the possession be restored forthwith within a period of two months,failing which we direct the concerned authority to take the possession ofland and houses with the help of police authorities. Let compliance oforder be reported to this Court within 10 weeks.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G