Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

http://www.judis.nic.in

3. While the revision is pending the purchaser of the property has filed a petition in CMP.NO.4226 of 2020 to implead him as a party in the revision and the said petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 31.07.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of the property belongs to the temple and therefore, trust can not sell the property of the temple. Even if, there is any reason for sale, the property cannot be sold without obtaining prior permission from the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment ( in short H.R. & C.E. ) . The Trust is a Public Religious trust managing the temple and the properties are for the benefit of the temple, and no alienation could be made without getting consent in writing from the Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department. Any alienation would primafacie be hit by section 34 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The District Court lacks jurisdiction to give permission for sale on an application under Section 34 of the Trust Act. That too, without issuing notice and hearing the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act, and also without impleading the H.R. & C.E. Department or Idol or Temple as party to the proceedings, the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent herein got the order behind their back. Now, the petitioner has been appointed as the Fit Person to the temple. Hence, he has filed the present revision challenging the said order.

5. He would further submit that since the properties belongs to the temple and the Trust is the public charitable Trust, Section 34 of the Trust Act could not be applicable. Further, Temple property can be sold only after getting prior permission from the Commissioner , H.R & C.E. Department. That too, through public auction and not private auction. In this case, the learned District Judge, without any jurisdiction, entertained the petition filed by the respondent Trustee and granted permission to sell the property of the temple. It is not sold through public auction, and the trustee themselves entered into an agreement with the third party and sold the property and even no market value was fixed . Only based on the guideline value and also the private agreement, they sold the property. Therefore, once the respondent has no authority to sell the property without the permission of the Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, the District Judge also has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Trust Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge in the Trust O.P. would be set aside. http://www.judis.nic.in

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the temple has nothing to do with the Trust. It is only the Trust property. Since the temple has not been maintained properly, in order to maintain the temple, they sought permission before the District Judge to sell the property and the sale price of the property can be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank and out of the interest amount, the temple can be maintained. The trust is only a private trust and the properties are not the temple properties. The property does not derive any income for maintaining the temple. Hence, in order to maintain the temple , the application was filed to sell the property, i.e. only to a small extent. Further the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner herein is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, to file a revision, the petitioner, who is the third party, has to obtain leave from the Court. But, no leave was obtained from the Court by the petitioner for filing this revision. Therefore, the revision itself is not maintainable. Section 34 of the Trust Act would applicable to the present case, since the Trust is the private Trust and the same is not under the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department and therefore, the respondent need not get any permission from the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. department to sell the property. The learned http://www.judis.nic.in District Judge also after considering all the facts, permitted the respondent herein to sell the property and also permitted to deposit the sale price before the Nationalized Bank. The sale is made based on the permission granted by the District Judge in the Trust O.P. and the purchaser is the bonafide purchaser and the respondent has filed the application with bonafide intention to develop the temple, which is not in a good condition and to perform the day to day pooja. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is admitted that the property belongs to the temple and the Trust is only a public and charitable Trust, and it is not a private Trust. Therefore, Section 34 of the Trust Act is not applicable in this case. If at all the Trustee wants to sell the property, they ought to have obtained permission from the Commissioner H.R. & C.E department or the Commissioner or temple should have been added as a party in the Trust O.P. However, the respondent has not impleaded the said temple or idol or the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E Department. The respondent herein has filed the Trust OP with nil respondent. Even otherwise if the property belongs to the Public Trust, it can be sold only by public auction in order to ensure transparency. But, in this case, the District Judge permitted to sell the property by privately and further the order itself shows that no market value was fixed and only based on the guideline value issued by the Revenue Department, the Court below permitted to sell the property, which is not proper.