^5^3''?!^.^-'' ^ ^=7^°^-" BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A BILASPUR ^) ,... wj'.No. 448 e Of2006. PETITIONER :^^. RESPONDENT Shri Balaji Swami Tmst Sfari Dudhadha Math, Raipur, through Rajeshree Maha A3u» a^Kut'l^ •?^"<»^ )tZ Ramsunder Das,.Guru Late Shri Rajesh Mahant Vaishnavdasji, Sarvarakar Managing Trostee, Shri Balaji Swami Tmst Shri Dudhadhari Math Raipur, Registration no. 12/33/9-53-54. VER S U S ^ :- 1. Registrar, Public Tmst cum Sub Divisio nal Officer, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.), 2. Collector, Collectorate Building, Raip District Raiput (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDL4 XI-HC-78 an^T^rR-fi* iwsn^r aiuiiti '4^ *11*1^tl Sb+lich T5T '<ll<11<1'il, Wfli'M'Ke, RfcllUy _,_ \IP ^^^toe ^ 200 3TI^?T(ra^T (yii^si^ff) BTcnwHi 31.8.2006 Mr. H.3. Agarwal, Sf\. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, &y. Heard on sdmission. Sv this writ oetition • questioned the vaiidity of Collector, Raipur whereby permission to the petitioner-'] Trust Act, 1951 (for short th|; I have heard iearned psrused the impugned orcier. Section 14 of the directions in the jnstrument or emy other law by any Coui^, cannot be transferred in wy\ Registraii. Sub-section (2) of not refuse his sanction in section (1) unless such the intervsts of the public tr^t In •rtie first instancej re|s it^ TllU^ Itt ^T'UST W<,i5- trffSQ 1 <£STT(»GE»"f <ff ebllfd'fl-f t<|t|dTffteczt<RlWK ^; ari^tr sn^T Sr\. Advocate with Miss Songeeta Mishra, ^dv. Seneral for State on advance copy. tl|e petitioner-Shri Balaji Swami Trust has order-dated 17.3.2006 possed by the Ithe Collector has refused to accord 1-rust under Section 14 of tiie C.6. Public i^ Acf) for selling the land of trust. Sr. Advocate for th®petitioner oind ^ct contemplcfes that 'subject to ihe \>f trust or any direc+ion given under this "oui^; iha property belonging to a public trust \mode wi'ttiout the p.revhus sanction of -the Secjtion 14 envisages that 'ihe Registrar shall r^pect of any transac+ion specified in sub- •vndpction will, in his opinion be prejudicial to ttvndiaction trtsst. the instrument of the petitioner-trust t cruducii.d be.foi'e. tlie Rsqistnxr P.T.CT XI-HC-78 sn^sr^f^tN; (WTSn^Wsbli* Soshan/- <0~^' s^'iTraiOT', y>Tilti'i<o, fafdiyy HIHWI Sh*1|ch ^200 3TI^?TV5RK (^dt^^lST) ?Rn'WHf?(T3n^T u pralperty tilie Otl of Trusts, whether the trust) and if so, in what monner tiie)/ As psr provisions of Sectic^n enTitled to deal with the the iRStr'umeRt of trust or propet'ty. Apart from that question and thereafter agreement to sate is not com}}! and for which the permissiorj not been sought and therefor^ Perusal of 1+ie order before the competent tha petitionsr for permission 1+ie perirsission wos rightiy infirmit/ in the order impugr In the r'esutt, the pstil^i for interfsrence by this Courjt India, the petjtion is iiabie dismissed. r$ ineti <*i-!<iri4)^ wrerf ^' tecfl- <Rf«i< ^;3Tf^TW^?r Ihas the authoritv to sate the land of trust wili be entitled to sale -riie lcmd of trust. 14 of the Act, the Trustess ars not in cmy manner, which is cAntrary to does not provide for The saie of trust ^e Revenue Inspector inspected the land in ily the autho"ity considered thot the !ete, the nature of icaid has to be changed of the Manager of land i.e. Coiiector has ^, 1+ie permission hos been wjected. that insufficient materiai was piaced |ity for considering -tiie application fited by to sale tiie property of trust and as such, ^jected and I do not find any iiiegaiit)' or ioner has not been able to make out a cass under Article 226 of the Constilution of to be dismissed ond it is, accordingiy, L.C.Bhadoo Judge P.T.O,