High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore Division Bench : Hon’Ble Shri Justice S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE DIVISION BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA Writ Appeal No.92/2014 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Others Writ Appeal No.135/2014 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Others Writ Petition No.11234/2020 Vipin Dhanaitkar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Counsel for the Parties : Shri A.K. Chitle, learned senior counsel along with Shri Kartik Chitle, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra, Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra and Ms. Sugnadha Yadav and Shri Manoj Manav and Shri Milind Phadke Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Poorva Mahajan, Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel along with Shri Vivek Patwa and Shri Rohit Saboo, Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Anika Bajpai, Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel along with Shri Vaibhav Jain, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra , Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra and Ms. Sugnadha Yadav and Shri Manoj Manav and Shri Milind Phadke. Whether approved for : Yes reporting WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -2- Law laid down : 1. The dispute, as to whether a particular property was or was not recognized as private property of the Ruler, is itself a dispute arising out of the terms of the Covenant, and therefore, not adjudicable in light of Article 363 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore does not have title of the Trust properties, as keeping in view the covenant signed by the erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State and order passed by the Government of India, the title was transferred to Madhya Bharat and now lies with the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Trust does not have any power of whatsoever kind to alienate the Trust properties in any manner. The original trust deed in respect of Khasgi Trust and the settlement of claim by Government of India in Khasgi properties makes it very clear that the Khasgi properties and the income from Khasgi shall be treated as lapsed for all time to the Madhya Bharat Government, and therefore, any subsequent trust deed amending the original trust deed providing for sale of Khasgi properties is null and void. 3. The letter dated 13.06.1969, which is allegedly the permission granted by the State Government / decision of the State Government, is nothing but a D.O. letter of the then Chief Secretary and as per the Business Allocation Rules, any decision of the Government for sale of property has to be issued in the name of Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates everything. Fraud vitiates every solemn proceedings and no right can be claimed by a fraudster on the ground of technicalities. Significant paragraph : 84 to 90, 115 to 116, 120 to 127 & 133 to 135. numbers O R D E R ( Delivered on this 5 th day of October, 2020) (S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) J U D G E J U D G E WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -3- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA Writ Appeal No.92/2014 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Others Writ Appeal No.135/2014 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Others Writ Petition No.11234/2020 Vipin Dhanaitkar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Shri P.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel along with Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants / State in Writ Appeals and for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Writ Appeals. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra and Ms. Sugandha Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No.92/2014. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel along with Shri Kartik Chitale, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.A. No.92/2014 and for respondents No.6 to 9 in Writ Petition. Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel along with Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1-A, 1-B and 1-D in W.A. No.135/2014. Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Poorva Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.A. No..92/2014 and for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition. WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -4- Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for Intervenor in all cases. Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for Intervenor in all cases. Shri Milind Phadke, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for Union of India. Shri Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL). Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel along with Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for respondents No.11 to 13 in Writ Petition. Shri Shekhar Bhargav, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Anika Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.A. No.135/2014. All parties have been served in the both the Writ Appeals. O R D E R (Delivered on this 5 th day of October, 2020 ) Per : S.C. Sharma, J: Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, these cases were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Appeal No.92/2014 are narrated hereunder. The appellant before this Court has filed this present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.11618/2012 [The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Another v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]. The writ petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge against the order (note-sheet) passed by the Collector, Indore, by which, the Collector, Indore has directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of State of Madhya Pradesh in all properties of the Trust to ensure that the properties of the Trust are not sold to other persons. 02. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioners / WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -5- Trust therein is a religious and charitable trust constituted on 27.06.1962. It was further stated in writ petition that the Trust and its activities were initiated by the erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State from the year 1761 – 1948, and thereafter, on account of merger, the Holkar State merged into Madhya Bharat. 03. The petitioners / Trust therein came up before the learned Single Judge with a case that on account of covenant executed by the parties, the private property, as per the schedule appended to the covenant, became the exclusive properties of the Maharaja, the other properties became the exclusive properties of Madhya Bharat (State of Madhya Pradesh) and a third species of property, which was not the State's property or the personal property of the Rulers of Holkar State, were the Trust's properties and in those backdrop, a Trust was constituted on 27.06.1962. 04. It has been further contended that in order to provide various checks and balances to ensure the public character of the Trust, the trust deed provided various safeguards including appointment of six trustees out of which three were government / public nominees. It has been contended that various recitals of the trustees also records that in the budget of Holkar State for the year 1947 – 48, a provision was made for Rs.2,91,952/- for maintenance of Khasgi Charities and the State Government has also issued a gazette notification on 27.07.1962 regarding the setting up of the Khasgi Trust and handing over the Khasgi properties to the Trust. 05. It was further contended by the petitioners / Trust in the writ petition that the covenant, which Maharaja WWW.LIVELAW.IN Writ Appeal Nos.92/2014, 135/2014 & Writ Petition No.11234/2020 -6- Yashwant Rao Holkar had entered into with Government of India and other Rulers of the princely State of Central India to form the United State of Madhya Pradesh, did not deal specifically with the Khasgi properties and there was only a general provision contained in Article VII (2)(c) for dealing with the properties like the Khasgi properties and the same reads as under:- “Subject to any directions or instructions that may form time to time be given by the Government of India in this behalf, the authority - (a) xxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxx (c) to control the administration of the fund in Gwalior known as the Gangajali Fund and / or any other existing fund of a similar character to any other Covenanting State.” 06. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge have further stated that for Gangajali Fund of Gwalior State an act called Gangajali Fund Trust Act, 1954 (Madhya Bharat Act No.11 of 1954) was enacted by the Madhya Bharat Legislature and was repealed later, however, for the Khasgi Charties and religious endowment in the Holkar State, a tripartite instrument was entered into between Government of India, Government of Madhya Pradesh and Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar on 07.05.1949.