1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7245 OF 2009 Rajiv Sadashiv Patkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. 1.Govt. of Maharashtra 2.Bhaskar Sakharam Dalvi ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Bhide, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. R.M.Patne, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Nana D. Telkar for Respondent No.2 CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Petitioner No.1 was the Secretary of the Shree Dev Bankilling & Shree Pawanai Devi Trust at Humbrat, Taluka: Kankavlli, Dist: Sindhudurg. The other Petitioners are also stated to be Trustees. The Respondent No.2 is stated to be the present Chairman of the Trust. 2.The Trust owned several properties. There was a temple 2 on one of the properties which is stated to have broken down. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Villagers required another temple to be constructed. The Appeal was made. A villager donated his land to the Trust. Since the Deed of Gift could not be registered consideration of Re.1/- was shown and the Deed of Sale came to be registered. The land was, therefore, sold to the Trust. The mutation entry under No.549 records the transaction. It shows 2 gat numbers being Gat No.1244 and 1369. The Respondent No.2 has produced the mutation entry along with the 7x12 extracts of Gat No.1244. It is, therefore, clear that the land under Gat No.1244 belongs to a Public Charitable trust. 3.The Petitioners claim that it is on private land because it has not been registered with the Charity Commissioner. The Petitioner No.1 was the Secretary. There was certain elections of the Trust. The Petitioner No.1 was not elected. A change report was filed. The Petitioner No.1 thereafter filed another change report. There are other disputes between the Trustees with which this Petition is not concerned. 4.The authorities being the Tahasildar, the S.D.O in Appeal as well as the Additional Commissioner in Appeal have considered the position relating to the immovable 3 property concerned in this Writ Petition. They have considered how it was sold to the Trust. 5.The Petitioners have sought to construct a temple on this land. The Petitioners have not got any permission or any sanctioned plan from the Building Authority. The construction is, therefore, unauthorised and illegal. The Authorities have considered this aspect also. There is nothing to show that the Trust has constructed any authorised structure used as the temple on the land under Gat No.1244 which is shown to belong to the Trust. 6.Further the structure stands on the land which has been validly sold to the Trust. It being a trust land is trust property. It being trust property requires permission of the Charity Commissioner for its sale under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act also. 7.All the Authorities have considered these aspects. There is nothing perverse in the decisions. The impugned order is correct. Consequently, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. 8.The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)