Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

2. Rai Sahib Kedar Nath, who retired as District Judge from the Punjab Judicial Service started three schools in Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Bazar Sita Ram and Daryaganj, Delhi between 1912 and 1916 in the memory of his father, Lala Ramjas Mal. He purchased land measuring 2 about 1800 bighas in villages Chowkri Mubarikabad and Sadhora Khurd, which now form part of NCR Delhi from his own resources and by collecting money in the form of donations from other philanthropists. In a public function held on 25.12.1916 in Ramjas School, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandani Chowk, Rai Sahib Kedar Nath is said to have made an announcement that he had created a Wakf and dedicated and donated all his movable and immovable properties including the land in villages Chowki Mubarikabad and Sadhora Khurd to the said school for charitable purposes, namely, advancement and promotion of education to the public and poor students. In 1917, he formed Ramjas College Society and got the same registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as a charitable institution. The objects of the Society were as under:

3. After some time, Rai Sahib Kedar Nath formed a managing committee of which he was the President. On 25.6.1936, he transferred the entire land to the Society by executing a release deed. In 1967, the name of the Society was changed from Ramjas College Society to Ramjas Foundation and the same was registered as such.

5. The objections filed on behalf of appellant No.1 under Section 5-A of the Act through Shri Ratan Lal Gupta, Advocate were rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter, three different notifications were issued under Section 6 of the Act.

(ii) After 5 years, appellant No.1 filed CWP No.106/1978 for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 and notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 31.1.1978.

(x) Appellant No.1 challenged the order of the Lt. Governor in W.P. No.5138/2002, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by detailed judgment dated 6.2.2004. S.L.P. (C) No.7026 of 2004 filed against that judgment was dismissed as withdrawn.

The same rule was restated by Scrutton L., J in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 K.B. 486. The facts of that case were that in April, 1916, the General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the district of Kensington made an additional assessment upon the applicant for the year ending April 5, 1913, in respect of profits arising from foreign possessions. On May 16, 1916, the applicant obtained a rule nisi directed to the Commissioners calling upon them to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be awarded to prohibit them from proceeding upon the assessment upon the ground that the applicant was not a subject of the King nor resident within the United Kingdom and had not been in the United Kingdom, except for temporary purposes, nor with any view or intent of establishing her residence therein, nor for a period equal to six months in any one year. In the affidavit on which the rule was obtained the applicant 22 stated that she was a French subject and resident in France and was not and had not been a subject of the United Kingdom nor a resident in the United Kingdom; that during the year ending April 5, 1913, she was in the United Kingdom for temporary purposes on visits for sixty-eight days; that she spent about twenty of these days in London at her brother's house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, generally in company with other guests of her brother; that she was also in the United Kingdom during the year ending April 5, 1914, for temporary purposes on visits, and spent part of the time at 213, King's Road aforesaid; and that since the month of November, 1914, she had not been in the United Kingdom. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commissioners and of the surveyor of taxes, who showed cause against the rule nisi, and from the affidavit of the applicant in reply, it appeared that in February, 1909, a leasehold house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, had been taken in the name of the applicant's brother. The purchase-money for the lease of the house and the furniture amounted to 4000l., and this was paid by the applicant out of her own money. The accounts of household expenses were paid by the brother and subsequently adjusted between him and the applicant. The Divisional Court without dealing with the merits of the case discharged the rule on the ground that the applicant had suppressed or misrepresented the facts material to her application. The Divisional Court observed that the Court, for its own protection is entitled to say "we refuse this writ of prohibition without going 23 into the merits of the case on the ground of the conduct of the applicant in bringing the case before us". On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Warrington L.J. approved the view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton L.,J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed:

(emphasis supplied)

18. While dealing with the question whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is Wakf property and is exempted from acquisition, the learned Single Judge analysed the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, referred to the concept of `Wakf' propounded by Ammer Ali, outlines of Mohammadan Law by Prof. A.A.A. Fayzee (Chapter IX pg.274-

19. The Division Bench also rejected the argument that if Wakf created by non-Muslims is excluded from clause (d) then the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by observing that the said plea was not pressed before the learned Single Judge and even in the grounds of appeal, this plea was not taken. In the opinion of the Division Bench, by omitting to press the point before the learned Single Judge and not taking a ground in the memo of appeal, the appellants will be deemed to have abandoned this part of challenge to the acquisition proceedings.

21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have saddled the appellants with exemplary costs but keeping in view the fact that they are running educational institutions for benefit of the community, we refrain from passing an order to that effect and leave the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that henceforth the respondents shall be free to use the acquired land for the purpose of planned development of Delhi and the appellant shall not be entitled to obstruct the proceedings 31 which may be taken by the respondents for utilization of land for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose.

.....J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly] New Delhi November 9, 2010.