MADHAVLAL BHALCHANDRA PATEL (DECEASED)versusPATEL DINESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI

      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:-



                                  Page 1 of 10
     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 29 th
                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

                                      Page 2 of 10
     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

                                 Page 3 of 10
     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

                                Page 4 of 10
   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



                                 Page 5 of 10
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


                              Page 6 of 10
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:-


                              Page 7 of 10
     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


                                   Page 8 of 10
     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


                                     Page 9 of 10
       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




                                                         Page 10 of 10