Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 312 (KAR)

MAHAMMAD HUSSAIN DABAHAYATSAB MULLA v. CHARITY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM

1996-06-19

T.S.THAKUR

body1996
TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) TWO questions fall for consideration in this writ petition. These are: (i) whether the charity commissioner can in exercise of his powers under Section 36 of the Bombay public trusts act grant permission to sell the trust property subject to a condition as to the minimum price at which the sale should be effected? And (ii) if the power is so available has the same been exercised properly in the context of the facts of the present case. ( 2 ) THE questions arise in the following backdrop:guru viraktha mutt rayanal is a registered public trust which owns certain properties in hubli town of the district of dharwad. The peetadikari of the trust appears to have filed an application before the charity commissioner at belgaum under Section 36 of the Bombay public trusts act seeking his permission to sell the property underlying c. t. s. nos. 1531 to 1534. This application was allowed by the charity commissioner by his order dated 30-10-1982 subject inter alia to the condition that the property was sold in a public auction, and that the market value fixed by the special deputy commissioner, dharwad was kept in view while conducting any such auction. Certain other conditions were also stipulated, which are not immediately relevant for the disposal of this petition. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the intending purchasers filed writ petition No. 19618 of 1985 in this court, which was allowed with a direction to the charity commissioner to consider the agreements to sell executed between the trustee and the petitioners and pass appropriate orders afresh on the application seeking sanction. Consequently, the charity commissioner once again considered the question of granting the sanction to the proposed transfer and has by his order dated 15-4-1987 impugned in this writ petition permitted the plots of land mentioned earlier to be sold subject to certain conditions stipulated therein one of which is that the plots should be sold at a price not less than Rs. 25,000/- per gunta and the sale transaction be completed within 6 months from the date of order. Out of the four prospective purchasers for the sites in question three appear to have agreed to pay the minimum consideration fixed by the charity commissioner while the 4th did not do so. Petitioners before me in the present writ petition are the l. rs. Out of the four prospective purchasers for the sites in question three appear to have agreed to pay the minimum consideration fixed by the charity commissioner while the 4th did not do so. Petitioners before me in the present writ petition are the l. rs. Of the 4th purchaser who have called in question the order passed by the charity commissioner primarily on the ground that he had no jurisdiction or authority to fix the minimum sale price while granting sanction for transfer of the trust property under Section 36 of the act aforementioned in particular keeping in view the fact that the trustees had agreed to sell the property in terms of the agreement to sell executed between the parties at the rate of Rs. 8,100/- per gunta. ( 4 ) 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) SECTION 36 of the Bombay public trusts act reads thus : 36 (1 ). (a) "no sale, exchange or gift of any immovable property and, (b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of non-agricultural land or building, belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the charity commissioner. Sanction may be accorded subject to such condition as the charity commissioner may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust". ( 6 ) A plain reading of the Provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the charity commissioner is entitled to impose such conditions as may be thought fit, by him having regard to the interests, benefits or protection of the trust. The expressions "interests, benefits or protection of the trust" are wide enough to include consideration of the price at which the proposed sale is sought to be made. Indeed the charity commissioner would have no justification to grant the sanction applied for in case he is of the view that the sale price fixed for any such transfer is not reasonable or in the interest or benefit of the trust. The very object behind the enactment of Section 36 providing for the grant of sanction is to ensure that the trust property is not squandered away or transferred for considerations other than those that are reasonable according to the market value. The very object behind the enactment of Section 36 providing for the grant of sanction is to ensure that the trust property is not squandered away or transferred for considerations other than those that are reasonable according to the market value. Suffice it to say that there is nothing in the Provisions that can possibly suggest that the power of the charity commissioner to impose conditions does not include the power to impose a condition as to the minimum sale price at which the sale can be effected. There is in the circumstances no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the commissioner could not impose a condition as to the minimum price at which the property could be sold. ( 7 ) THAT brings me to the 2nd question namely, whether the charity commissioner was justified in fixing the sale price at Rs. 25,000/- per gunta for transfer of the land. The question is of equal significance for even when the charity commissioner may have the power by impose a condition as to the sale price, it may be open to the trustee or the prospective purchaser as in the present case to demonstrate that the said power has been exercised arbitrarily. The existence of a power in a statutory authority does not license its exercise in an arbitrary, unreasonable or fancifull manner. Such power shall have to be exercised fairly, objectively and having due regard to all such considerations as are relevant thereto. There is nothing like an unlimited or uncontrolled discretion, particularly in matters where the exercise of such discretion affects or is likely to affect the rights of third parties. As a matter of fact the wider the discretion the greater has to be the circumspection in its exercise. ( 8 ) COMING then to the instant case the charity commissioner has taken into consideration the location of the plot which is situate close to the city bus terminus at durgad bail an important market place. The charity commissioner also took into consideration the fact that other persons had come forward to purchase the sites situated in the vicinity of the stem question at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per gunta. In the circumstances, therefore the view taken by the charity commissioner that no sale for an amount less than Rs. The charity commissioner also took into consideration the fact that other persons had come forward to purchase the sites situated in the vicinity of the stem question at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per gunta. In the circumstances, therefore the view taken by the charity commissioner that no sale for an amount less than Rs. 25,000/- per guntas would be in the beneficial interest of the trust cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable so as to warrant interference from this court. It is pertinent to notice that the minimum price fixed by the charity commissioner was by reference to the price prevalent as on the date of the impugned order. One of the conditions imposed by the charity commissioner was that the sale must be finalised within six months from the date of the order. It follows that in case the requisite sale deed was not registered within the period granted, the order would lapse for it can hardly be said that the sale consideration once fixed by the charity commissioner would hold good for all times to come. In that view, therefore the only remedy open to trustees would be to apply for a fresh sanction order if so advised which the charity commissioner may consider and dispose of taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances. In the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .