High Court
Facts
(1) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1748 OF 2024The Charity Commissioner Bombay,Through Joint Charity Commissioner,Aurangabad...AppellantVersus1.Deva s/o Khema Naik,Age: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture2.Supada s/o Namdev Sasane,Age: 55 years, Occu: Service,3.Bhavrao s/o Laxmanrao Kolte,Age: 45 years, Occu: AgricultureRespondent Nos.1 to 3 R/o. Savaladbara, Tq. Soygaon,Dist. Aurangabad.4.Chunnilal s/o Seva Chavan,Age: 50 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Devrai, Post Savaladbara,Tq. Soyegaon, Dist. Aurangabad...RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2024WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.12312 OF 2022INFIRST APPEAL NO.1749 OF 20241.Bhavrao S/o Laxmanrao Kolte,Age: 54 years, Occu: Agri., R/o: Sawaladbara, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad.2.Mohan S/o Parshram Naik,Age: 74 years, Occu: Agri., R/o: Charutanda, Post. Sawaladbara, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad.3.Chunnilal S/o Seva Chavan,Age: 59 years, Occu: Agri., R/o: Devhari Post. Sawaladbara, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad...Appellants(Appellant No.1 and 2 are original defendant no.1 and 3 (2) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odtwhereas Appellant no. 3 is original Plaintiff no. 1)Versus1.Namdev S/o Hari Dokale, (died)2.Deva S/o Khema Naik,Age: 69 years, Occu: Agri., R/o: Ghanegaon Tanda post. Sawaladbara, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad.3.Supada S/o Namdev Sasane,Age: 64 years, Occu: Retired, R/o: At present residing at plot no.56, Shuddhodhan, Housing Society, Mahagruha Nirman Society, HarsulTq. & Dist. Aurangabad...Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs) …Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for Appellant in FA/1748/2024.Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocate for Appellants in FA/1749/2024.Mr. J. A. Menzes h/f Mr. P. S. Paranjape, Advocate for RespondentNos.2 and 3.Mr. D. S. Chouhan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 8. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED: 14th JANUARY, 2025.ORDER:-1.The present First Appeals have been filed under Section42(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act impugning judgment andorder dated 20.11.2013 passed by the District Judge, Aurangabadin M.A.R.J.I. No.300/2013.2.The First Appeal No.1748/2024 is filed by the CharityCommissioner, Bombay, whereas First Appeal No.1749/2024 hasbeen filed by original defendant nos.1, 4, so also plaintiff no.1. Thedispute emerges from change report no.394/2003 and 550/2003dated 18.07.2003 and 18.10.2003 respectively in connection to (3) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odtpublic trust namely Jay Kalanka Devi, Shikshan Prasarak Trust,Sawaladbara registered in the year 1978 vide RegistrationNo.F/545 with Assistant Charity Commissioner at Aurangabadbefore formation of Jalna District. The change report no.550/2003was accepted by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna.Consequently, it was carried in Schedule-1. The order acceptingchange report was assailed in Revision Application No.20/2012before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, which cameto be allowed on 30.05.2013 holding that village Sawaladbara isnow merged in district Aurangabad. Eventually, application forchange report submitted to Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalnawas directed to be transferred to Assistant Charity Commissioner,Aurangabad, for taking further decision. It was further orderedthat Managing Committee for relevant period shall be treated asde-facto, since issue of change is merely academic. 3.The order passed by the Joint Charity commissioner wasfurther subjected to challenge in M.A.R.J.I. No.300/2013 beforeDistrict Judge, Aurangabad, who pleased to allow application videimpugned order dated 20.11.2013, thereby quashed and set asidethe order dated 30.05.2013 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner,Aurangabad observing that when the Assistant CharityCommissioner, Jalna was not competent to entertain the changereport in question and such objection is ultimately accepted by
Legal Reasoning
(5) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odtproviding region and sub-region alongwith their limits ofjurisdiction.6.Having considered the submissions advanced, it can beobserved that there is no dispute that the village Sawaladbara fallsin Taluka Soygaon, District Aurangabad. The Public Trust isregistered at village Sawaladbara. The office of the Public Trust isalso at village Sawaladbara. Therefore, the Assistant CharityCommissioner at Jalna would not have entertained the applicationfor registering change. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner,Aurangabad was, therefore, justified in setting aside the orderaccepting change report passed by Assistant CharityCommissioner, Jalna. However, while doing so, he directed that forthe period from 2003 to 2008, Managing Committee, which wasbrought into effect by change report of 2003 shall be treated as de-facto committee. The learned District Judge while entertainingchallenge to the order of Joint Charity Commissioner in M.A.R.J.I.No.300/2013 observed that, once Joint Charity Commissioner hasconcluded that Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna had nojurisdiction to accept the change report, the said order ought tohave been set aside without giving further direction to consider thestatus of the Managing Committee under the selfsame report asde-facto for the relevant period. (6) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odt7.It is trite that, the Assistant Charity Commissioner withinwhose jurisdiction the trust is registered can entertain theapplication for change report. Consequently, the order acceptingchange report by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna cannot bejustified. Similarly, the Joint Charity Commissioner could nothave declared the committee that was brought into power underthe change report even for academic purpose as de-facto committee.It is evident from the memo of application of M.A.R.J.I.No.300/2013 that the order of Joint Charity Commissioner waschallenged to the extent of issue no.3 and the directions employedin Clause No.1 in the order dated 30.05.2013. Therefore, thelearned District Judge was also justified in setting aside that partof order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad inRevision Application No.20/2012. Eventually finding of JointCharity Commissioner that Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalnaholds no jurisdiction to entertain change report pertaining tosubject trust is maintained. 8.Consequently, there is no merit in the First Appeals. HenceFirst Appeals stand dismissed.9.In view of dismissal of First Appeal No.1749/2024, CivilApplication No.12312/2022 does not survive and same isaccordingly disposed of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGERushikesh/January-2025
Arguments
(4) fa-1748-2024 & anr..odtJoint Charity Commissioner, then the Joint Charity Commissionerought to have simply set aside the order of Assistant CharityCommissioner being without jurisdiction. He could not havepassed any further order considering subsequent development.4.The learned Advocates appearing for the appellants submitsthat there cannot be dispute that now village Sawaladbara fallswithin district Aurangabad and Assistant Charity Commissioner atJalna was not having jurisdiction to entertain the change report.However, according to them, further direction given by JointCharity Commissioner to consider the Managing Committee underchange reports as de-facto committee could not have been disturbedby the learned District Judge while allowing M.A.R.J.I.No.300/2013. They submit that parties had surrendered to thejurisdiction of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna.Consequently, order accepting change report no.550/2003 waspassed. The learned District Judge ought to have considered theaforesaid position and maintained the direction appearing inClause 1 in operative order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner.5.Mr. Badakh, learned AGP submits that the learned DistrictJudge committed serious error while setting aside entire order ofJoint Charity Commissioner. According to him, the impugnedorder is not in conformity with Section 22 read with Section 17 ofMaharashtra Public Trust Act as well as Rule 4 of Rules of 1951