BHASKAR LAXMAN JADHAV & ORS. versus KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 11-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 11 S.C.R. 767 
BHASKAR LAXMAN JADHAV & ORS. 
v. 
KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION 
SOCIETY & ORS. 
(Petition for Special Leave To Appeal No. 30469 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 11, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: 
s. 36 - Agricultural land belonging to a public trust -
Alienation of by inviting bids - Transaction in favour of 
petitioners (highest bidders of first bid) not finalized - Fresh 
offers invited - Respondent no. 1 fumed to be highest bidder 
A 
B 
c 
in second bid - Petitioners and trustees entering into 
D 
compromise and obtaining orders from High Court without 
impleading respondent no. 1 in the proceedings - Meanwhile 
another offer higher than that of respondent no. 1 also 
received - High Court directing to implead all the bidders of 
second bid in the proceedings before Charity Commissioner 
E 
- Held: Keeping in view the language of s.36, the interest of 
the trust would be in getting the maximum for its immovable 
property - Charity Commissioner is directed to have a fresh 
look at the sale of the subject land of the Trust in accordance 
with the directions of the High Court - However, it would be 
open to the Charity Commissioner to permit all the parties 
F 
before it to submit fresh offers for the Trust land and if deemed 
necessary, a fresh public notice for sale of the Trust land may 
be issued, keeping the price offered by respondent no. 1 as 
the reserve price. 
Constitution ofJndia, 1950: 
Art. 136 - Petition for special leave to appeal - Conduct 
of petitioners - Held: It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose 
G 
767 
H 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A a// the facts of a case and leave the decision making to the 
court - In the instant case, petitioners have not come up-front 
and clear with material facts - The Court declines to grant 
special leave to appeal to the petitioners for suppression of 
a material fact. 
B 
In response to the offers for sale of 9 acres of 
agricultural land belonging to a public trust, the 
petitioners' bid being the highest (Rs. 22.5 lakh) was 
accepted and an agreement for sale/purchase was 
entered into on 18.2.1995. Since the transaction could not 
C be finalized, the trustees moved an application before the 
Joint Charity Commissioner on 13.9.2001 to extend the 
time for completing the transaction, arid in January 2002 
they moved another application for revised permission. 
The JCC, by order dated 2.5.2003, rejected both the 
D applications. On 15.8.2004 the petitioners and the trustees 
entered into a fresh agreement increasing the sale price 
of the subject land to Rs. 1 er. 25 lakhs. The trustees 
moved a second application for extension of time, which 
was rejected by JCC by his order dated 24.7.2006. On 
E 19.2.2007, the trustees issued a public notice for sale of 
the subject land and respondent no. 1 offered the highest 
bid of Rs.43 lakhs per acre. Thereafter, the petitioners 
filed a writ petition (without impleading respondent no. 1) 
in the High Court challenging the order dated 24.7.2006 
F passed by the JCC. On 28.8.2008, the petitioners and the 
trustees entered into a compromise that the order dated 
24.7.2006 be set aside and the second application for 
extension of time be remanded to JCC for hearing on 
merits impleading the petitioners also as parties to the 
G proceedings. The High Court passed an order in terms 
of the compromise. When respondent no. 1 came to know 
of the proceeding before JCC, he applied for his 
impleadment and so also the other interested purchasers. 
JCC, by order dated 29.11.2008 rejected the applications. 
H Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the 
BHASKAR I.AXMAN JADHAV v. KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB 
769 
WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY 
order of JCC with an alternate prayer for a direction to 
A · 
the JCC to consider his bid. The High Court noticed that 
another offer higher than that of respondent no. 1 had 
been received. It, therefore, remanded the entire matter 
for consideration by the Charity Commissioner with a 
direction to consider all the bids received pursuant to 
B 
public notice dated 19.2.2007 including those of the 
petitioners and respondent no. 1. 
In the instant petition for special leave, the petitioners 
contended that the issue before the High Court pertained 
C 
to impleadment of respondent no.1 in the second 
application for extension of time, but the High Court over-
stepped its jurisdiction in directing consideration
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.