The
case was related to a development cum sale transaction of the B.C. Batliwala
Agiary Trust (Parsee Temple) by an agreement with M/s. Astral Enterprises. Though
the case was related to Parsee trust, the ratio of the judgement is equally
applicable to Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc religious trusts getting huge
donations from their followers as well as outsiders.
By
a development agreement made by the Trustees of of B.C.Batliwala Agiari Trust,
the temple (Agiary) would be renovated and 33% of the built-up area would be given
out of balance F.S.I. In addition, a sum
of Rs.2,95,00,000/- as sale consideration was received by the Trustees from the
Developers. The appellant Cyrus Rustom Patel filed writ application in the High
Court of Bombay. The High Court
dismissed the same, mainly, on the ground of delay, as petitioner was aware of
the transaction w.e.f. the year 2003. The
High Court has observed that offer made by another deloper in respect of
sale transaction of an amount of Rs.55 crores was not proper. It was to acquire property rights on a
freehold basis and not in the form where the setback line runs through the
Sanctum Sanctorum. The High Court opined
that offer may have been tempting, but could not be said to be genuine. HC also
taken into account of the delay in filing the Writ Petition.
[To
read free part of my book detailing my fight against corruption and scams while I was in central gov service ‘A FRAUD IN
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’ go to the below link and click “LOOK INSIDE”
button:
The
Supreme Court has mentioned in the judgement that, it had directed a number of
times in its judgements that sale of trust property, which is like public
property, if at all necessary, is not permissible by way of private
negotiations; could be done only in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to
be recorded. There was no exceptional
circumstance, no urgency to throw away the valuable property of the trust,
which was derogatory to its interest and would have defeated the very object of
the creation of the trust for the preservation and protection of religion and
Parsi culture. The joint venture development was not an intended transaction;
sale option was mentioned dubiously in the agreement; same indicated that
transaction was not bonafide. It was a cloak or a device adopted by the Trust
so as to sell the property, and the transaction could not be said to be in the
interest and benefit of the trust at all.
Apart from that, there was a clause for sale, and lease of 999 years
would also tantamount to a sale, and admittedly sale option had been exercised.
The
Supreme Court further stated that the High Court had also failed to consider
the various aspects, and had rejected the petition mainly on the basis of the
delay, that was not very material in the facts, as no development had taken place.
When such a prime and valuable public property was involved, the aforesaid
delay could not be said to be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The High Court has also not looked into the market value of the property and
has dismissed the writ application on untenable and flimsy grounds. The Supreme
Court also stated that considering the value of the property and the arguments
made on behalf of the trustees, they were of the view that the trustees were not
up to the task of protecting the interest of the trust, and clearly colluded
with the developer while entering into such an agreement for
development-cum-sale. Stating this, the order passed by the Charity
Commissioner as well as by the High Court were set aside. The appeal was allowed by imposing cost
Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the developer with the Supreme Court Advocates
Bar Association Welfare Fund. (Ref:- Supreme court Jud g m e n t dated 21-9-2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1745 of 2010).
For more about my activities, go to my home page: www.manjaly.net
No comments:
Post a Comment