Bombay High Court
ANUJDEVELOPERS THRU. PARTNER RAJENDRA BHIKA CHITODKARversusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the consent terms are valid, voluntarily executed, and may replace the Charity Commissioner’s order.
Summary
Anuj Developers filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner concerning the sale of trust property belonging to Chinchwad Devasthan Trust. The petitioner, the Trust (Respondent No.2) and Kannada Sangha Pune (Respondent No.3) amicably resolved their dispute and executed consent terms for the sale of the property in portions to the petitioner and Respondent No.3 for a total consideration of Rs.24.5 crore, with the Charity Commissioner having sanctioned sale only to Respondent No.3. The court was asked to approve these consent terms. After hearing, the court found the consent terms were voluntarily executed, free of coercion, and would further the Trust’s objects. Consequently, the court marked the consent terms on record, substituted the Charity Commissioner’s order with the consent terms, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the consent terms executed by the parties can be approved by the court and replace the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
- Whether the proposed sale of the trust property in portions to the petitioner and Respondent No.3 is permissible under trust and charity law.
- Whether any coercion or duress affects the validity of the consent terms.
Subjects
- trust property sale
- consent terms
- charity commissioner
- settlement
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- trust law
Judgment
903-WP-14235-25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14235 OF 2025
Anuj Developers ..Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Charity Commissioner & ors. …Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Sr. Advocate, i/b Mr. Sarthak S
Diwan, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Akshay R Kulkarni, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Y D Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Pooja Chavan a/w Ms. Raufa Shaikh i/b Ms. Neha
Wadekar, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Kishor V. Joshi - Authorized Trustee of Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sudhakar V Rao - Authorized Trustee of Respondent No.3.
Mr. Rajendra B. Chitodkar – Authorized Partner of Petitioner.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 20th August 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE P.C.:
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.24
21:04:37 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that, the
petitioner, Respondent No.2 – Chinchwad Devasthan Trust and
Respondent No.3 – Kannada Sangha Pune, have amicably
resolved the dispute and the parties have agreed that, the trust
SAINATH, PA 1/4
903-WP-14235-25.DOC
property be sold to the petitioner and the Respondent No.3 in
the proportion agreed among the parties. The sales would be
effected at an aggregate consideration of Rs.24,50,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four Crores Fifty Lakhs), for which the learned
Charity Commissioner has accorded sanction for sale of the
trust property in favour of the Respondent No.3 alone. The said
consideration would be paid by the petitioner and Respondent
No.3 to the Respondent No.2 - Trust, in accordance with the
amount indicated in clause (D) of the consent terms.
3. The learned Counsel seek leave to tender consent terms.
4. Leave granted.
5. Mr. K. V. Joshi, the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust,
who is authorized by the Respondent No.2 – Trust, by a
resolution passed on 12th July, 2026, is present before the
Court. Mr. Sudhakar Rao, the Member of the Respondent No.3 –
Kannada Sangha Pune, who is also authorized by the resolution
passed by the Respondent No.3 on 07 th July 2026, is present
before the Court. Mr. Rajendra Chitodkar, an authorized partner
of the Petitioner – Firm is also present.
6. The parties admit the execution of the consent terms and
the contents thereof. The parties are identified by their
respective Advocates. Upon being inquired, the parties
SAINATH, PA 2/4
903-WP-14235-25.DOC
specifically state that, they have read and understood the
contents of the consent terms, they admit the same and agree to
abide by the respective undertakings therein. In particular, Mr.
Sudhakar Rao, the authorized Member of Respondent No.3,
specifically submits that, the Respondent No.3 is agreeable to
purchase an area admeasuring 8R and pay the consideration of
Rs.13,28,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores Twenty Eight Lakhs)
to the Respondent No.2 – Trust.
7. The consent terms seem to have been executed voluntarily.
There does not appear any coercion or duress.
8. The Court finds that, the proposed settlement has an
element of putting to rest all the disputes between the parties
once and for all. The resultant expeditious sale of the trust
property in distinct portions to the petitioner and Respondent
No.3, would facilitate the Trust to utilize the sale proceeds for
the advancement of the object of the Trust. The proposed sale of
the portions of the trust property to the petitioner and
Respondent No.3 appears to be for the benefit and in the
interest of Respondent No.2 – Trust.
9. The consent terms, thus, stand taken on record and
marked ‘X’.
SAINATH, PA 3/4
903-WP-14235-25.DOC
10. There shall be an order in accordance with the consent
terms “X”.
11. The orders passed by the Charity Commissioner impugned
in this petition stands substituted by this order in accordance
with the consent terms “X”.
12. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 4/4
Checking your session…