C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6605 of 2002 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================== MADHAVLAL BHALCHANDRA PATEL (DECEASED) & ORS. Versus PATEL DINESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI & ORS. ========================================== Appearance: DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.2 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.3,1.4,1.5 ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 01/04/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is 7led under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 36(1)(3) of the Bombay (now Gujarat) Public Trust Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking the following reliefs:- C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 (A) Be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 29th November 2001 to the extent only of remanding the matter back to the Charity Commissioner. (B) Be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner being the highest bidder stands entitled to property in question of the trust and therefore YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased accordingly to direct the Respondent to execute the documents in favour of the petitioner and to hand over the vacant possession of the entire property by charging the entire amount from the petitioner quoted in the tender. (C) during the pendency, hearing and 2nal disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to restrain the respondent – authorities from changing the character of property in any manner whatsoever i.e. alienating it, disposing it, selling it, giving on lease etc and be pleased to direct that the accrued income from the property should be deposited with the Charity Commissioner regularly. 2. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, that the respondent – Charity Commissioner had published an advertisement in the local daily newspaper “Sandesh” where the oCer has been made for sale of property of Catholic Church to which the petitioner had made an application oCering the price of Rs.7,53,313/- and sent a pay order for Rs.75,333/-. It is the case of the petitioner that there were only two oCers i.e. one from the petitioner and other from respondent No.2 on the date of opening of the tender and then the petitioner was informed by the Charity Commissioner that opening of tender has been postponed to 07.01.2000. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the oCer of respondent No.1 was not there, his oCer was included, for which the petitioner has raised an objection for the same and Charity Commissioner assured to pass an order on objection of the petitioner. That the respondent – authority passed an C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 order in favour of respondent No.1 but the same was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner visited the oEce of the Charity Commissioner, but he was informed that no such orders came to be passed and then the petitioner applied for certi7ed copy of the order regarding disposal of property. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was provided copy of order, which came to be passed wherein his objections have been incorporated and thereafter the petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 11 of 2000 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) and the Tribunal stayed the impugned order of the Charity Commissioner. Though the petitioner submitted the copy of order of the Tribunal to the Sub – Registrar, despite of that he had registered the property in question. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Sub – Registrar had given in writing to the petitioner that he was not concerned with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has been leased to quash and set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Charity Commissioner for inviting fresh oCer under Section 36 of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the order was defective on the basis of appreciation of evidence that has been led and material which has been produced, therefore, it was not required to remand the matter back to the Charity Commissioner as petitioner was highest bidder, he is entitled to get the property in question and hence the present petition is 7led. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petition was C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 preferred against the impugned order and earlier there was litigation between the parties being Special Civil Application No. 9017 of 2000 whereby this Court passed an order on 28.09.2000. It is also submitted that in the said petition, this Court has observed in para – 4 that there was interse bidding between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Under the circumstances, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal 7led by respondent No.1. The petitioner may request the Tribunal for 7xing an early date of hearing as he has challenged the interim order before this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition. While disposing of the said petition, the Court has permitted the petitioner and others to make appropriate request to the Tribunal and in view of the said order, the Tribunal has heard the respective parties and, thereafter, passed the 7nal order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that merely respondent No.1, who was the purchaser of the subject parcel of land owned by the trust situated at Vijaynagar bearing Survey No. 34/7 0.39 guntha i.e. 3946 square meters, was permitted to sell to Dineshbhai Govindbhai Patel which was challenged by the present respondents. It is submitted that under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent – authorities challenged by the petitioner by way of present petition. In support of his submissions, Mr.Dave, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of (i) Balaji Developers Vs. Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti reported in 2023 (0) GUJHC 62993, (ii) Ganesh Ramchandra Jadhav Vs. Govardhan Sanstha (Regd) Wai Pune reported in 2021 (0) INSC 339 and (iii) Mahendra Dhisalal Agarwal Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal reported in 2021 (1) GLR 589. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has referred and relied C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 upon the aEdavit-in-reply 7led by respondent No.5 and has opposed the present petition. The relevant paragraphs of the aEdavit-in-reply reads as under:- “I say and submit that I am the sole trustee of the Trust and had acquired property in Vijaynagar in 1976-77. I have constructed the hostel building and Church and Community Centre for undertaking reform work for the upliftment of the tribals. I say and submit that I had purchased the property for Rs.45,000/- in 1976-77 after obtaining necessary permission of the competent authority and property has been re=ected in the PTR. I say and submit that I had 2led my report re=ecting my property in the PTR but the o>ce of the Charity Commissioner has consumed time and ultimately property has been re=ected in the PTR. I say and submit that thereafter I set up a new complex at village Saroli which is nearby Vijaynagar by acquiring a big parcel of land with intention to start Primary and Secondary Schools, Primary Health Centre, Community Centre and Church. It is submitted that I have developed the said complex from my hard labour and tribals of this area are taking bene2ts of these facilities established by me and therefore I decided to dispose of the present property viz. Survey No.34/7 of Mouje Vijaynagar, Taluka Vijaynagar, District Sabarkantha admeasuring 3900 sq.yds. by 2xing upset price of Rs.3.00 lakhs. I say and submit that I had discontinued to use this property at Vijaynagar since last 10 years because I have already set up a new complex at village Saroli and therefore I could not look after the same and there was no cooperation from the local level and some anti-social elements wanted to grab the property and because of that also I had lost interest to develop the said property. As I had refused to part with the property and to succumb to the pressure of anti-social elements, they had damaged the property of Vijaynagar and therefore I had decided to dispose of the property. I say and submit that before making application to the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of The Bombay Public Trust Act, I had got the property valued through the Executive Engineer, Idar/Himatnagar who has the authority C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 for valuation. He assessed the value of the property of the land and construction standing thereon that was in dilapidated condition. The valuation 2xed by the Executive Engineer was less than Rs.3.00 lakhs. However I had 2xed the upset price at Rs.3.00 lakhs. I say and submit that the draft advertisement was received from the O>ce of the Charity Commissioner was sent to the representative of Sandesh daily newspaper stationed at Himatnagar which is 80 kms. Away from Vijaynagar with a request to get it published immediately in the newspaper which was published on 15.10.1999 in "Sandesh" daily newspaper. In the said advertisement inviting oEers from interested persons the last date mentioned was 26.10.1999. I say and submit that on 26.10.1999, the present petitioner and the respondent no.1 were present in the o>ce of Charity Commissioner and since 15 days' period was not over, the Charity Commissioner had adjourned the proceedings to 7.12.1999. I say and submit that on 7.12.1999 in the o>ce of Charity Commissioner, the present petitioner and respondent nos. 1 & 2 were present and in their presence all the procedure for opening the tender/oEer had been followed and signatures of the oEerers had been obtained. I say and submit that in the said proceedings, the petitioner has stated that he has no objection for any oEer being opened. It is submitted that thereafter the oEer of respondent no.1 was found to be the highest and therefore Charity Commissioner had accepted the said oEer and remaining amount had been deposited. I say and submit that on 14.12.1999 the E.M.D. amount has been withdrawn by the present petitioner by cheque no.4277582 of Dena Bank, Vijaynagar Branch. The said Cheque had been received on behalf of the petitioner by Dr. Vinod K. Patel who is residing at Vijayangar and running his hospital. It is submitted that having withdrawn the E.M.D. it establishes that the present petitioner had no interest in the property in question and thereafter all the procedure had been completed and having received the entire amount by the Trust, the Trust has executed the sale-deed on 15.5.2000 in the o>ce of Sub-Registrar, Bhiloda. I say and submit that the Trust has not received any notice or prohibitory order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the Hon'ble C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. I say and submit that I have executed the sale-deed in favour of the respondent no.1 and I have discharged my obligation which was after receipt of the full consideration pursuant to the order passed by the Charity Commissioner on 15.2.2000. I say and submit that having received the amount within the time period speci2ed by the o>ce of the Charity Commissioner, the execution of the sale-deed is consequential act. Therefore there is no illegality committed by me nor I have committed any breach of order passed by any authority. I say and submit that I have not been served with any order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 15.5.2000 and I was not aware of such type of order. Therefore I have not committed breach of any order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. I say and submit that after having received full consideration and handing over possession to the respondent no. 1, I am not residing at Vijaynagar. I therefore request the Hon'ble Court that since 9 years have been passed and I being the sole trustee of the Trust and I have received substantial price than the upset price 2xed by me and therefore I request the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the petition. I say and submit that the present petitioner has 2led petition before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and has made wrong statement on oath to the eEect that "on 26.10.1999 the petitioner was present before the Charity Commissioner and thereafter Charity Commissioner has not opened the tender on the same day and the o>ce of the Charity Commissioner has communicated that the date of opening the tender will be communicated by letter and it was never communicated to the present petitioner. It is submitted that in these proceedings it is submitted by the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings dated 7.12.1999 and that was re=ected in the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal also. I say and submit that the present petitioner has in the a>davit-in-reply 2led by him before this Hon'ble Court in SCA No. 12498 of 2001 stated in Para-6 on page no.62 in 5th line onwards from bottom the petitioner has stated as under:- C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 The Charity Commissioner had told me the same thing that the opening of the tender date had been diEered and the same would be opened on 7th of January, 2000 at 12.00 p.m. (this is wrong it should be 7th December, 1999). I further insisted that reasons for the change in the date should be intimated to me and asked him that what the said authority is trying to do and would open the doors for manipulation, irrelevant and extraneous considerations would creep in and who would be responsible for such things...… I further submit that the petitioner has in Para-7 on page no.63 of the said a>davit-in-reply 2led by him in SCA No.12498/01 stated as under:- "7.1 say and submit that I reported at the o>ce of respondent on 7th of January, 2000 at 11.00 a.m. (it is wrong date it should be 7th December, 1999) Le. the date on which the tenders were to be opened...… I say and submit that I have perused the record of the Charity Commissioner and noted down the Rojkam of the o>ce of Charity Commissioner on simple paper wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was present on 7.12.1999 and he has signed the same. Therefore the petitioner has made patent wrong statement before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and misled the Hon'ble. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and also this Hon'ble Court. I say and submit that in the present petition also the present petitioner has mentioned wrong date of 7.1.2000 intentionally though the date of opening of the tender is 7.12.1999. I say that the petitioner has in Para-4 on page no.7 & 8 of the petition and in Para-5 on page no.8 of the petition mentioned the date of opening of the tender as 7.1.2000. In Para-5 petitioner has also stated that he was present at that time. Therefore the petitioner has intentionally suppressed material facts from the Hon'ble Court. In this way the petitioner is in the habit of making wrong statements on oath before judicial authorities and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs on that ground only.” 6. The issue involved in the petition is whether the Revenue Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has committed illegality C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 and irregularity. Whether the Court can interfere with the 7ndings recorded by the Charity Commissioner on facts. The important issue involved in the petition is whether while granting application under Section 36 (1)(2)(3) of the Act, the guidelines which is issued by this Court in the case of Thakorebhai Gangaram Vs. Ramanlal Maganlal Reshamwala reported in 1993 (1) GLH 473, the authorities below must have to act upon the bene7t of the trust while granting permission under Section 36 to alienate / dispose of any property of the trust, the Charity Commissioner has to keep in mind the better interest of the trust and while granting such permission whether any adverse eCect is caused to the trust or not. 7. In the case of Thakorebhai Gangaram (supra), this Court has held and observed in para 5 as under:- “5. Keeping the aforesaid three considerations in mind the Charity Commissioner is required to examine the matter and after allowing the parties with ample opportunity to lead evidence and to satisfy as to how the need to alienate the property of the trust is arisen and whether it would act in the interest of trust or not, he would proceed to grant or refuse the sanction. Number of factors, such as, 2nancial position of the trust, location of the property, the use of particular property to the trust, market position, income which the property is fetching or would continue to fetch compared to the income which the property would bring to the trust if the property is disposed of, the liabilities of trust, income of the trust, and last but not the least, the price at which the property is being sold are required to be taken into account. This is not the exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account. Over and above these factors, many other relevant and genuine factors may need consideration of the Charity Commissioner. However, after taking all these relevant factors into consideration and after hearing both the parties if the Charity Commissioner sanctions the alienation of the property question is as to whether such opinion should be upset in appeal on grounds which do not C/SCA/6605/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 materially aEect the satisfaction reached by the Charity Commissioner in whom power to grant sanction is vested. In my opinion, the primary power to grant sanction is vested by the Legislature advisedly in Charity Commissioner. Charity Commissioner should exercise such power justly and fairly and after taking into consideration the relevant factors as stated hereinabove and once such relevant factors are taken into account and once such sanction is granted by the Charity Commissioner, in my opinion, it would be unjust to upset such sanction in appeal on grounds which do not materially aEect the satisfaction reached by the Charity Commissioner. The appellate authority which exercising powers u/Section 36 (3) could not take upon itself the task of substituting its decision to that of the Charity Commissioner when the Legislature has thought it 2t to invest the power in the Charity Commissioner.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for both the sides and the averments made in the petition and the decision of this Court in the case of Thakorebhai Gangaram (supra), this Court is of the opinion that there is no error of law and facts in the order passed by the Tribunal and hence, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The interim relief if any granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. Rule is discharge. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 17:34:46