Court overturns Commissioner's orders on Transferable Development Rights, deeming them immovable property. Reconsideration directed under Section 36.

The court set aside two orders by the Joint Charity Commissioner regarding the sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). It was held that TDR qualifies as immovable property, contrary to the Commissioner's view that it is movable property. As permission under Section 36 was deemed necessary for TDR sale, the rejection of objections without considering this requirement was unjust. Both orders were overturned, and directions were given for a fresh consideration of objections in light of Section 36. The Commissioner was instructed to decide the application within two months, with parties to appear on a specified date.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to two orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner regarding the sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and the requirement of permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged two orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner regarding the sale of TDR. The first order rejected the objections raised by the petitioners against the proposed sale of TDR to respondent no.3. The objections were rejected on grounds of being belated, respondent's higher offer, and lack of deposited amount by petitioners. The second order disposed of the application by respondent no.2, stating that no permission is needed for TDR sale as it is movable property under Section 36(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The main issue was whether TDR could be considered movable property. The Division Bench's judgment in a previous case concluded that TDR, being a benefit arising from land, qualifies as immovable property. This ruling was further supported by a single Judge's decision, affirming that TDR is immovable property. Consequently, the Charity Commissioner's decision that no permission was required due to TDR being movable property was deemed incorrect.

3. Regarding the first order rejecting petitioners' objections, since permission under Section 36 was now deemed necessary, the objections needed reconsideration. The rejection of objections without considering the necessity of permission was unjust. Thus, both impugned orders were set aside, and directions were issued for the revival of respondent no.2's application and a fresh consideration of objections in light of Section 36.

4. The court directed the Joint Charity Commissioner to hear and decide the application within two months, with parties to appear on a specified date. The rule was made absolute, each party bearing its own costs, and the record was to be transmitted promptly for action. Steno copy of the order was to be provided to the involved parties for compliance.

---