Court Rules Inquiry Under Gujarat Public Trust Act Not Barred by Limitation; Bona Fide Purchaser Defense Left Open for Trial
In a landmark decision dated June 17, 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed multiple appeals challenging the ownership of disputed land near the Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Temple in Vadodara, affirming that the property belongs to the Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Trust rather than the erstwhile Maharaja of Baroda or subsequent purchasers. The judgment, delivered by Justice J.C. Doshi, confirmed concurrent findings of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner, and the Joint District Judge, which had earlier upheld the Trust’s claim to the land.
The dispute arose after a revenue record mutation in 1956 transferred the land from the Trust to the Maharaja’s name based on a misinterpreted letter from the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department. The Collector of Baroda, acting as the ex officio Administrator and Trustee of the Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Trust, filed an application under Section 22A read with Section 79(1) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, seeking to declare the land as Trust property and to cancel the illegal mutation.
The Maharaja of Baroda contended that the land was private property forming part of the Laxmi Vilas Palace complex, included in the merger agreement with the Union of India post-independence, and that the Collector’s claim was barred by limitation. Other appellants claiming to be bona fide purchasers argued that they bought portions of the land for value without notice of the Trust’s claim.
However, the High Court meticulously examined historical, documentary, and oral evidence, including the temple’s establishment in 1797 by Diwan Raoji Appaji with the Maharaja’s support, the consistent revenue records showing the land as Trust property until 1956, and the physical separation of the temple land from the Laxmi Vilas Palace by a central jail and open lands. The Court found that the 1956 mutation was illegal, based on a misconstrued letter that did not pertain to the disputed land, and that the land was dedicated to the Trust by the Maharaja himself.
The Court also clarified the nature of appeals under Section 72(4) of the Public Trust Act, holding that these appeals are in the nature of second appeals subject to the limitations of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, and require a substantial question of law for interference—a threshold not met by the appellants.
On the issue of limitation, the Court held that the Limitation Act does not apply to inquiries by quasi-judicial bodies like the Assistant Charity Commissioner unless expressly stated. Section 22A of the Public Trust Act explicitly allows inquiries at any time after registration if particulars remain un-inquired, rendering the Collector’s 1971 application well within jurisdiction.
Regarding the bona fide purchaser defense, the Court observed that while purchasers who acquire property for value in good faith without notice may have protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this issue was left open for trial. The burden lies on such purchasers to prove their bona fide status, including absence of actual or constructive notice.
The judgment expressed judicial concern over prolonged and vexatious litigation surrounding Trust property, emphasizing that endless disputes over deity’s land drain judicial resources and impede justice. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed with costs, interim reliefs vacated, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession during the four-week stay period allowed for approaching higher courts.
This ruling affirms the principle that Trust properties dedicated for religious and charitable purposes retain their status unless formally altered by competent authority, and that illegal revenue mutations without due process can be challenged irrespective of time elapsed. It also highlights the careful balance courts maintain in protecting bona fide purchasers while upholding public Trust interests.
Bottom Line:
Public Trusts - Concurrent findings that disputed land belongs to Shri Yavteshwar Mahadev Trust and not to the erstwhile Maharaja of Baroda, upheld - Inquiry under Section 22A of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 not barred by limitation; bona fide purchaser defense left open for trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 Sections 22A, 72(4), 79(1); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100; Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 19(b)
Kishanji Maganji Thakore v. Collector of Baroda, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926545
