Issue notices regarding general exemption to Wakf, public trusts: HC | india | Hindustan Times
  • Thursday, Jun 21, 2018
  •   °C  
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 21, 2018-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Issue notices regarding general exemption to Wakf, public trusts: HC

JABALPUR DIVISION bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice A K Patnaik and Justice K K Lahoti has directed that notices be issued to respondents First Additional District Judge at Bhopal, Bal Niketan Nyas on Hamidia Road at Bhopal through its chairman and Bhopal resident Kailash Agrawal in response to private petition filed by Indore resident Satya Pal Anand, the owner of Anand Automobiles who is also a tenant of Nyas in State capital.

india Updated: Mar 06, 2006 13:43 IST

JABALPUR DIVISION bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice A K Patnaik and Justice K K Lahoti has directed that notices be issued to respondents First Additional District Judge at Bhopal, Bal Niketan Nyas on Hamidia Road at Bhopal through its chairman and Bhopal resident Kailash Agrawal in response to private petition filed by Indore resident Satya Pal Anand, the owner of Anand Automobiles who is also a tenant of Nyas in State capital.

In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Government notification dated September 7, 1989 under sub section 2 of Section 3 of MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground that it has granted general exemption to Wakfs registered under Wakf Act and public trusts registered under MP Public Trust Act 1951 from all the provisions of 1961 law.

Where as under the sub section, the income derived from the rent that is used only for the institutions can be exempted. Moreover, the government notification has not made it mandatory that the income derived from rent, which is entitled for exemption should be used solely for the trusts. Above all, Section 3 has vested no power in government to issue such a notification, petition said.

The petitioner contested that government is not empowered to grant general exemption under 1961 Act. Rather, the State should decide case for exemption individually based on an institution’s worth. Appealing HC to issue direction on this contention, as it has remained undecided so far, the litigant has asked HC to declare the 1989 notification invalid and Section 3 (1) and (2) of 1961 Act unconstitutional because they contravene Article 14, 21, Preamble and Directive Principles of the Constitution.

Citing his example, plaintiff said he was tenant of Bal Niketan Nyas and was paying monthly rent of Rs 75 for the accommodation. Later, Nyas filed a civil suit before 1st Bhopal ADJ to seek exemption from applying all the provisions of 1961 Act.

Holding the government notification valid, the 1st ADJ granted exemption and passed the order in favour of Nyas. Meanwhile, the trust increased his monthly rent from Rs 75 to Rs 5,692, a straight 7589.33 per cent hike. This sudden rise crippled the tenant-petitioner and denied him right to continue his business to earn his livelihood.

The lower court issued the ex parte order despite Supreme Court judgement (AIR 1961, SC 1731 (CB) para 19), which demands to ensure whether tenant to be evicted has alternate premises to continue his business. This direction also means that the concerned