Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. For more effectively carrying out the objects of the Trust the Trustees shall have the power whenever they deem it necessary to borrow from banks or other financial institutions such amounts as may be found necessary by creating a charge on the security or securities or against F.D. receipts which the Trust may hold to otherwise.

In Witness Where of The Declarants have signed this deed on the day and year first above mentioned.

sd./- M.CT. Muthiah sd./- M.CT. Pethachi Mr. C. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that S.RM.M.CT.M. Thiruppani Trust is a public charitable trust with composite objects as seen from the object of the Trust and the main and primary object of the petitioner Trust is for charitable purposes. The other object of the Trust are distributive in each one of the objects which are for charitable purpose. In particular, Mr. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Clauses 3(b) and (c) of the petitioner Trust which is as follows:-

26. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. In the instant case, it is admitted that the petitioner trust - S.RM.M.CT.M. Thiruppani Trust, Madras is a charitable institution. It is recognised as a charitable institution under the Income Tax Act. The trust deed dated 12th February, 1969 has been executed by two trustees M.CT. Pethachi and M.CT. Muthiah. From a perusal of the Trust Deed it is clear that the predominant activity of the Trust is to carry out charitable purposes such as to carry out necessary repairs of the old Hindu temples, buildings new Hindu temples, giving aids or establishing afresh any hospital, educational or industrial institution or for relief of poor or afflicted or otherwise and in general any object of a religious or charitable nature. It is thus a composite trust, and each object is for charitable purpose and as per Clause 3(c) and one of the objects of the Trust is the running of schools and colleges.

It is clear from the preamble of the Act that the object of the Act is to prevent the concentration of vacant urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculations profiteering and for the purpose of bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good and the object of the Act is not take away the lands in the hands public charitable or religious trusts. In view of the said object, specific provisions have been made for public charitable trust from the operation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The conditions imposed under Section 20 (1) (iv) are that the urban land should be required and used for any public charitable or religious purpose and the exemption will endure as long as the land continues to be required and used for the said purpose by such trust. Further, Section 2 of the Act declares 'that this Act is for giving effect to the Policy of the state towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) and clause (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution" In this connection, Article 39(b) and (c) says that the state shall in particular direct its policy towards securing (b) that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve the common good and (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. It cannot be said that the vacant urban land required and used by the petitioner trust to run an educational institution of public nature results in concentration of public wealth to the common detriment. Further, Article 41 of the Constitution among other objects says that the state shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provisions for securing the right to education. It is therefore the duty of the State under Directive principles of state policy not only to establish educational institutions but effectively secure the right to education. The Supreme Court in Unni Lrishnan's Case, has held the right to education is part of right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and is justiciatable. In effect the petitioner-trust is fulfilling this object by establishing and running an educational institution of a public nature.

39. In the instant case, The petitioner-Trust namely, S.R.M- CT.M. Thiruppani Trust squarely comes under the exemption provided under Section 20 (1) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and as the petitioner-trust with composite objects and one of the objects of the Trust is to run an educational institution of public nature and as such the petitioner-trust is squarely covered within the definition of public charitable trust and the school run by the trust is an educational institution of public nature. Making of profit is not relevant if the predominant object and activity of the trust is to carry out charitable purpose. The predominant object and the activity of the instant Trust is a public charitable purpose. Further even though there is a surplus of income over the expenditure by running the school, the surplus is ploughed back by the trustees for the advancement of the educational activity of the school. It is pertinent to note that none of the trustees get any benefit by way of remuneration from the income of the school. Accordingly, the vacant urban land required and used by the petitioner-trust for the school is outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 by virtue of Section 20 (1) (iv) of the Act as long as the vacant urban land is required and used by the petitioner-trust for the purpose of running the educational institution of public nature.