MRS.JYOTI AMRISH BARKULEversusDNYANESHWAR MOTIRAM TALVEKAR and ORS.

                                                                              902-WP-2791-2001.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally
           signed by
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2791 OF 2001
NADAF      Date:
           2026.07.22
           17:20:06
           +0530
                        Mrs. Jyoti Amrish Barkule and Ors.                  ...Petitioners
                              Versus
                        Dnyaneshwar Motiram Talvekar And Ors.               ...Respondents

                                                        ***
                        Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4.
                        Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Rahul Arora & Rutuparn Deo i/b. Mr. R.D.
                        Shah for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5.
                        Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent/State.
                                                        ***

                                                               CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                               DATE    : 22nd JULY, 2026
                        P.C. :

                        1.       Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                        2.       The Petitioners are challenging the order dated 02.03.2001
                        passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane Region, Thane
                        on an application filed under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts
                        Act, 1950 (‘the said Act’ for short), granting permission to
                        Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Meghraj Gupta to file suit for possession of
                        subject matter property - Survey No. 59-B situated at village Chitalsar
                        Manpada, Tal. & Dist. Thane

                        3.       Learned counsel Mr. Deshpande appearing for Petitioner Nos. 2
                        & 4 submitted that Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of one Mr.
                        Nandlal Ramdas Gujaral who has sold the subject matter property to
                        the Petitioner No.4. He submitted the Assistant Charity Commissioner
                        has not conducted due inquiry as required under Rule 27(3) of The

                        Husen                                  1
                                                    902-WP-2791-2001.doc




Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 and without considering the
objections raised by Petitioners, permission has been granted to file
suit. He submitted that according to Petitioners, Late Mr. Nandlal
Ramdas Gujral was original owner of the subject matter property and
part of the land is restored to the Adivasi and the Trust had no right,
title & interest.

4.      Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 submits that in
view of nature of objections raised by the Petitioners, it is clear that
issue of title is raised and it cannot be decided by the Charity
Commissioner and only Civil Court has the jurisdiction and therefore
the impugned order rightly grants permission to file the suit.

5.      Perused the impugned order as well as other record.

6.      From paragraph No.3 of the petition, it is seen that one of the
Applicants, viz. Mr. Megharaj Gupta was no more when the petition
was filed. Also, when Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 tried to
contact Respondent No.1 Mr. Dyaneshwar Motiram Talvekar, who
was other Applicant, the packet sent by speed post has returned with
postal endorsement he is deceased.

7.      Therefore, it is clear that both the Applicants, at whose
instance and in whose favour the impugned order is passed are no
more. The impugned order therefore cannot be given effect to by
anybody else.

8.      In that view of the matter, due to long passage of time and due
death of both original applicants - Mr. Dyaneshwar Motiram Talvekar


Husen                                 2
                                                     902-WP-2791-2001.doc




and Mr. Megharaj Gupta, the challenge in the petition has become
infructuous.

9.      In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on
the rival contentions on merits, the petition is disposed of as
infructous. Interim/ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

10.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.


                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                 3