Without necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner in view of the
provisions of the said Act. -No settlement carries value in the eye of law - The respondents No.1 to 4 were owners of the land in question and it is their say that the said land belonged to Laxmi Narayan Devesthan (a Public Trust).- Since Haji, a tenant in possession of the suit land on the relevant date on 1.04.1957, the proceedings
under Section 32 (G) of the said Act culminated in an order in favour of the tenant on 6.5.1963 as a statutory sale in favour of the tenant.
Haji having become the owner of the suit land in pursuance of the same in 1963 sought permission to sell the land in favour of the appellants on 18.4.1996, which permission
was granted on 30.6.1997. The sale was consequently effected and, thus, Haji lost all interest, as may be available to him, in the land in question as tenent etc.,-After almost a lapse of 3 � decades, Respondents No.1 to 4 sought to assail the order dated 6.5.1963 of a statutory sale in favour of Haji in which endeavour they succeeded on 24.6.1999 on the ground that the land belongs to the Trust and, thus, there could not have been any sale in
favour of the tenant. - Purchaser and Respondents No.1 to 4 came to a settlement but the legal heirs of Haji filed objections - their objections were dismissed as not maintainable as they have no locus sandi to file any objections.
We, however, make it clear that respondents No.5 to 7 will have no locus before the Charity Commissioner.
SLP (C) No.30590 of 2011
1
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30590/2011
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-07-2011
in WP No.6446/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay)
AMIR J ALI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIDYADHAR KESHAV DATAR . & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 31019/2011 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 31061/2011 (IX)
Date : 17-07-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh K., Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Shinde, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Gwen Kartika, Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.
Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The respondents No.1 to 4 were owners of the land in
question and it is their say that the said land belonged to
SLP (C) No.30590 of 2011
2
�Laxmi Narayan Devesthan� (a Public Trust). One Hasan Haji
Miya Shaikh (Teli) was a tenant of the said land. The tenant
invoked the provisions of Section 32 (G) of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
�the said Act �). Since Haji, a tenant in possession of the
suit land on the relevant date on 1.04.1957, the proceedings
under Section 32 (G) of the said Act culminated in an order in
favour of the tenant on 6.5.1963 as a statutory sale in favour
of the tenant. Haji having become the owner of the suit land
in pursuance of the same in 1963 sought permission to sell the
land in favour of the appellants on 18.4.1996, which permission
was granted on 30.6.1997. The sale was consequently effected
and, thus, Haji lost all interest, as may be available to him,
in the land in question. After almost a lapse of 3 � decades,
Respondents No.1 to 4 sought to assail the order dated 6.5.1963
of a statutory sale in favour of Haji in which endeavour they
succeeded on 24.6.1999 on the ground that the land belongs to
the Trust and, thus, there could not have been any sale in
favour of the tenant. The further proceedings have also been
culminated in orders in favour of the Trust right till the
impugned order.
In the course of pendency of the proceedings before us,
the purchasers from the tenant i.e. the appellants and the
Trust claim to have been settled their disputes and have filed
SLP (C) No.30590 of 2011
3
a memo of settlement. It is the settlement which sought to be
objected by respondent No.6, one of the legal heirs of the
original tenant.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that the endeavour of respondent No.6 is completely
misconceived and is an attempt to extract amounts arising from
the settlement arrived at between the original owner and the
subsequent purchaser(s). The fact remains that if the
impugned order of sale in favour of the tenant is set aside,
that would have restored the status as a tenant provided the
tenant continue to hold the property. The tenant Haji
extinguished his rights in the property by transferring it to
a third party.
Now the legal heirs having come into the picture, such an
endeavour is made by way of objections, which cannot be
countenanced.
This does not mean that this Court will not examine the
validity of the settlement but not at the behest of the said
respondent No.6. The objections of respondent No.6 are
dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-; Rs.10,000/-
each to the landlords and to the subsequent purchaser(s).
Now coming to the consent terms. We have heard learned
counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
SLP (C) No.30590 of 2011
4
respondents No.2 to 4. We may note that respondent No.1 had
passed away and has been deleted from the array of parties.
Respondents No.5 to 7 are the legal heirs of the original
tenant but the objections were filed only by respondent No.6.
The settlement terms indicate the necessity for
respondents No.2 to 4 to transfer the land in favour of the
subsequent purchasers as according to them considerable
afforestation has been done by the appellants in some part of
the land and a temple exists which is required to be
maintained by respondents No.2 to 4 for which moneys are
required. In terms of the settlement, a part of the land
shall continue to vest with the subsequent purchasers being
the appellants. While, in respect of the other part of the
land respondents No.2 to 4 are to take steps for sale of that
land on behalf of the Trust. The appellants would be given
the first option to match that bid.
We find it difficult to straightaway give our
imprimatur to the settlement as it may envisage necessary
permission from the Charity Commissioner in view of the
provisions of the said Act. We, thus, consider it appropriate
that the appellants and respondents No.1 to 4 should approach
the Charity Commissioner for obtaining necessary permission
which will be considered on its own merits. On such request
being made to the Charity Commissioner, the request will be
SLP (C) No.30590 of 2011
5
processed expeditiously so that the decision is made available
to us by the next date of hearing.
We, however, make it clear that respondents No.5 to 7
will have no locus before the Charity Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the parties states that the present
appeal may be kept pending in order to facilitate the
aforesaid.
List the matters for directions on 22-10-2019 on
Miscellaneous Board.
(POOJA ARORA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
