Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is the case of the protected tenants that the Government disobeying the status quo orders of the Supreme Court included the lands of the GGT which they are holding as protected tenants and declared as excess land for regularization in favour of third parties in occupation.

24. In W.P.M.P.No.22750 of 2010 in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 filed by the President of Arya Samaj, Banswada, Nizamabad and in W.P.M.P.No.26914 of 2012 in W.P.No.16558 of 2009 filed by the President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Sultan Bazar, it is stated that late Bansilal Vyas inspired by teachings of late Maharshi Swami Dayanand Saraswathi established Arya Samajs in the State and also worked as Secretary of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha for some time. It is stated that the registered Trust deed dated 18.10.1956 executed by late Bansilal Vyas was under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. As per Section 11 of the said Act, the Trustee is bound to fulfil the aims and objects of the Trust except as modified by the consent of all the beneficiaries and where the beneficiary is incompetent to contract, his consent may, for the purpose of the section, be given by a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Further, where discretionary power conferred on a Trustee is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such powers may be controlled by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 49 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the jurisdiction of the government is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Government will come into play only when the Trustees have violated their duties, liabilities and failed to fulfil the objects and aims of the Trust or causes injuries to the Trust property, but Government cannot take away any Trust property. The duty of the Government is only to protect the property of the Trust for the noble cause it was established. Since the objects of the Trust are for the welfare of the society and it is not against any public policy, it cannot take over the property. As per section 63 of the Indian Trusts Act, where Trust property comes into the hands of a third person, beneficiary may file a suit for a declaration that the property is comprised in the Trust. Their claim is that late Bansilal created the Trust with the support of the petitioner's society by way of contributions, gifts, donations with an object to run the educational institutions etc. In the event the Trust fails to manage it, as per the deed of Trust, the entire Trust management has to be entrusted to Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad and where it declines it should be given to the apex body of Arya Samaj ie Sarwadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Delhi and in case it declines it should be given to any other institution on such terms and conditions. By resolution dated 29.5.2010 the Board of Trustees of the GGT authorized the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad to take over the management of the GGT, all institutions, movable and immovable properties of GGT including the property in dispute. The petitioner society is instrumental in establishing GGT. The petitioner society filed W.P.No.7221 of 2010 challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 24.1.2007, but the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. After declaration of sale transactions as null and void, the property stand divested to the Trust.

SUBMISSIONS:

31. Sri Chandrasena Reddy Petitioner in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 appearing as party-in-person submitted that since the Government considered the matter under section 80(1) of the Endowment Act and declared the sale transactions made upto the year 1987 executed by the Trust as null land void and the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps was requested to take further action in the matter as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000, the properties of the Trust continue to vest in GGT, therefore, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 to determine that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch clearly held that GGT is a 'charitable institution' and the properties given and endowed were for a charitable purpose, therefore, its properties are charitable and shall be utilized only for charitable purposes. The S.O. & C.A without taking into consideration cancellation of the sale transactions has erroneously passed orders under the ULC Act and the Commissioner of Appeals has also failed to take into consideration the objections filed by the Trust in proper perspective and did not apply its mind. The GGT is a public Trust created for the welfare of the society and as such the Government has duty to protect the properties of the Trust. The properties of the Trust are to be utilized only for the benefit and welfare of the society as per the objects of GGT and not for any other purpose.