Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke, Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 28487 of 2022
RAMBABU AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Ms.Rasi
Kushwah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri
Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Shiv Shankar Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 07/05/2025
Delivered on : 17/06/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India is directed against the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by
Registrar, Public Trust/Collector, District Gwalior in case No.5B-
113(4)/2020-21, whereby without considering the directions of this
Court issued vide order dated 26.08.2017 in writ petition
No.16088/2017 and instead of deciding of the pending applications for
correction in the public trust register, the Registrar had given a finding
that the petitioners are not the trustees of the Trust Temple Shri
Ramjanki Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior ignoring that the
petitioner no.1 is the founder member of the trustee of the Trust and
the petitioner no.2 was/is a trustee.
2. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2021,
whereby the directions were issued by the Deputy Collector, Gwalior
to SDO, Jhansi Road, Gwalior to propose names of persons to be
appointed as trustees for the seven posts lying vacant in view of the
order passed by the Collector dated 30.12.2020 for carrying out the
activities of Seva Puja properly, for the security of the Trust and its
proper working and for implementation of the objectives of the Trust
and are further aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the
Registrar/Trust, whereby eight persons were appointed as trustees of
the Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Laxmi Bai
Colony,Gwalior.
3. Short facts leading to the controversy are that a Trust named as
Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior was
registered vide order dated 09.01.1969 under Section 6 of the Public
Trust Act and at the time of registration, there were nine founder
trustees including petitioner No.1.
4. As one of the founder trustees Phoolchand died, vide resolution
dated 13.07.1975 new trustee Rambharose Dixit was inducted in the
Trust as trustee and thereafter vide resolution dated 15.12.1975
because of death of Sunderlal Shrivastava, another trustee, a new
trustee, namely, Kamalkant Sharma was inducted in his place. In the
year 1977, because of death of another trustee, Narayanrao Sejwalkar,
new trustee N.D. Parsure was inducted in the Trust and in this regard
information was submitted to the Registrar.
5. On 19.07.1986 another resolution was passed and Mahant
Rameshwar Das was appointed as Chief Trustee due to demise of
Jagannath Das, one of the Chief founder trustees. The aforesaid fact of
Mahant Rameshwar Das being appointed as Chief Trustee was
recorded in the register of records (a part of Annexure P/3-A).
6. Vide Resolution dated 21.12.2000 Mahant Rameshwar Das, who
was the Chief Trustee appointed petitioner No.2 as his power of
attorney to carry out all the activities on his behalf and later on, since
Mahant Remeshwar Das, who was appointed as Chief Trustee due to
health conditions expressed his desire to step down and release him
from the duties as Chief Trustees, hence, vide resolution dated
08.10.2006 in place of Mahant Rameshwar Das, present petitioner
No.2 was appointed as one of the Chief Trustees. The information
about appointment of present petitioner No.2-Mahant Ramsewak Das,
as Chief Trustee was given to the Registrar, Public Trust but the
register was not corrected nor any intimation/information/notice in this
regard was given to petitioner No.2.
7. On 17.05.2007 an application under Section 25 of the Public Trust
Act was moved before the Registrar, Public Trust for filling up the
vacancies, which occurred due to resignation of trustee N.D. Parsure
and proposed/inducted the name of Sharad Bharadwaj in his place as
trustee and also for filling up all the post of trustee due to resignation
of one O.P. Saraswat and in his place proposed/inducted one
Ramswaroop Shastri Bhagwatacharya and it was prayed that necessary
amendment be carried out in register of the trustees.
8. Another application was moved on 17.10.2008 for inducting present
petitioner No.2 as Chief trustee. Another similar application was
moved on 27.09.2010. On 19.01.2011 information was forwarded to
the Registrar, Public Trust with regard to the resolution dated
11.11.2010, whereby one Shri Rambabu was inducted as trustee in
place of Sitaram charan Guru Jagannath Maharaj because of his death
and in place of Radhacharan Pandey the name of Ramdasji Sharma
was inducted due to death of Radhacharan Pandey. On 05.03.2012
another application was forwarded to the Registrar, Public Trust for
inducting one Kamaldeep Sharma and Love Bharadwaj in place of
Kamalkant Sharma, who had tendered his resignation and one another
vacant post vide resolution dated 31.01.2012. Even though the
information was forwarded to the Registrar, the register of the trust
was not amended and instead of correcting the entries in the register
the Registrar, Public Trust issued a show cause notice to the Chief
trustee of the petitioner/Trust dated 13.10.2006 for showing cause as
to why the trust be not revoked? A reply was filed to the said notice
but instead of taking any action on the basis of notice the Registrar
moved an application before learned District Judge, Gwalior under
Section 26 of the M.P. Public Trust Act making a prayer that the trust
be revoked. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Registrar in
initiating the proceedings under Section 26 of M.P. Public Trust Act,
the petitioner preferred a writ petition No.1412/2007. During
pendency of said writ petition the Chief Trustee Mahant Rameshwar
Das expired, therefore, an application was moved to induct present
petitioner No.2 Mahant Ramsevak Das in place of Mahant Rameshwar
Das as a Chief Trustee. The said application, for substitution of
petitioner No.2 Mahant Ramsevak Das in place of Mahant Rameshwar
Das, was allowed and petitioner No.2 was inducted as Chief Trustee in
the petition.
9. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.07.2010 the petition got finally
heard and disposed of and while quashing the order dated 29.11.2006
passed by the Registrar as well as the application submitted before the
District Judge, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar to pass a
fresh speaking order after considering all the facts placed before him
and it was observed that if the Registrar comes to a conclusion that
there is a mismanagement of the Trust, he can submit a fresh
application before the District Judge.
10. After remand, again proceedings were initiated by the respondents
and enquiry was conducted through Tehsildar. In the report it was
submitted by Tehsildar that earlier Chief Trustee Mahant Rameshwar
Das had expired on 07.12.2007 but prior to his death he had already
declared present respondent No.2 as Chief Trustee and vide resolution
dated 06.11.2008 in the presence of trustees Deshbandhu Sharma, Dr.
Keshav Pandey, Radhacharan Pandey, Ramswaroop Shastri, Rambabu
Agarwal Sarraf, Sharad Kumar Bharadwaj and present petitioner No.2
was declared as Chief Trustee. On the report so submitted by the
Tehsildar the matter was finally heard by the Sub Divisional Officer
( revenue) and vide order dated 11.07.2016 the application preferred
by the present petitioner No.2 to appoint/acknowledge him as a Chief
Trustee was rejected holding that in the resolution of the trust passed
on 06.11.2008 though there is mention of names of various trustees
but except for Deshbandhu Sharma, the other names had not been
inducted in the register of Trust and there is no mention of the mode of
their appointment as trustees, thus, their very appointment cannot be
said to be legal, therefore, correction in the register at the instance of
present petitioner No.2 doesn't appears to be proper.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki
Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior through petitioner No.2 as Chief
Trustee preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Gwalior in civil
appeal No.90/2017. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated
26.08.2017 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
(revenue) was affirmed.
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer (revenue) and District Judge, Gwalior another writ petition
No.16088/2017 was preferred by the Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki
Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior, which came to be decided on
21.08.2020 and while allowing the petition the order dated 11.07.2016
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (revenue) Lashkar Gwalior in
case No.03/2015-16/B-113(4) was quashed holding that Sub
Divisional Officer (revenue) did not have any jurisdiction to exercise
powers on behalf of Registrar/Trust, therefore, the said order is not
sustainable. Consequently, the order dated 26.08.2017 passed by
District Judge, Gwalior in M.A. No.90/2017 was also quashed and the
matter was relegated back to the Collector/Registrar, Public Trust for
its adjudication afresh on merits.
13. In compliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid
writ petition the Registrar, Public Trust/Collector was required to
decide the applications on which earlier the Sub Divisional Officer
had passed the order as a Registrar, Public Trust, which was quashed
due to lack of jurisdiction but instead of deciding the said applications
contrary to the directions of this Court a notice was issued to the
petitioner to submit last ten years register of the Public Trust, which
was submitted by the petitioners but Registrar, Public Trust/Collector
on similar lines to the order passed on earlier occasion by the Sub
Divisional Officer (revenue) held that petitioner No.2 and other
applicants could not prove themselves to be legally appointed trustees
and the transactions made by the present petitioner No.2 with regard to
the trust property being in total derogation of interest of trust deserves
to be set aside and accordingly rejected the applications.
14. In the later part of the order, the Collector/Registrar, Public Trust
for the purpose of carrying out Seva Puja of the temple, the
management and conducting of the trust, its security, appointed Sub
Divisional Officer, Jhansi Road as a nominated trustee and directed
him to propose the names for appointment of the persons on the post
of trustees lying vacant. In pursuance to the directions issued to the
Sub Divisional Officer vide letter dated 13.01.2021 to propose the
names, learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated
04.05.2022 appointed 08 persons as trustees by invoking provisions
under Section 25 of the Public Trust Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid,
the present petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance
on the decision of this Court in W.P. No.16088/2017 has argued that
prior to 08.11.2021 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), before
whom the applications were moved for correction in the register of the
trust, was not having any jurisdiction to entertain any application, as
there was no delegation of powers/authorization by the Registrar,
Public Trust/Collector under Section 34-A of the Public Trust Act for
exercising the powers of Registrar, he could not have passed any
orders on the applications earlier preferred for correction/amendment
in the register of Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki Gangadas Ki Badi
Shala, Gwalior.
16. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that from the year 2007
continuously applications were submitted in proper format before the
competent authority for correction of the names in the register, but
from the record there is no reflection of fact that on those applications
any heed was paid and on its basis corrections were made in the
register.
17. While referring to part of Annexure P/3-A, it was argued that vide
order dated 21.12.2000 name of present petitioner No.2, as power of
attorney holder of Chief Working Trustee Mahant Remeshwar Das
was inducted in the register. Further referring to the same document, it
was argued that there is a mention of the order dated 11.07.2016
passed by the Registrar/Trust and the appeal No.90/2017 preferred at
the instance of Registrar, Public Trust before the District Judge,
Gwalior, wherein vide order dated 26.08.2017 the earlier order dated
11.07.2016 was upheld and the application of present petitioner No.2
to be appointed/recognized as Chief Trustee was rejected, but the
factum of the said orders i.e. 11.07.2016 and 26.08.2017 passed in
Civil Appeal No.90/2017 being quashed in writ petition
No.16088/2017 vide order dated 21.08.2020 has not been mentioned,
whereby the matter was relegated back to the
Collector/Registrar/Public Trust for adjudication of the matter afresh
on its own merits, which meant that the matter was required to be
heard from the stage it was pending before the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue).
18. It was further argued that Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in
pursuance to the orders passed by the Collector/Registrar Public Trust
directing him to recommend/appoint trustees on the vacant posts, in
absence of any proper authorization as required under Section 34-A
could not have appointed trustees, as the basis on which the Sub
Divisional Officer (revenue) had usurped the powers of Registrar,
Public Trust, was work distribution memo and by way of work
distribution memo the powers of Registrar cannot be delegated to the
Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and when there is no separate
notification issued delegating the powers of Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), he had no jurisdiction to perform the duties as Registrar,
thus, the very order dated 04.05.2022 by which the new trustees have
been appointed is also per se illegal and, therefore, deserves to be
quashed.
19. It was further argued that a perverse finding is given by the
Registrar that except Deshbandhu Sharma there is no other trustee of
the trust alive while petitioner No.1, who is the founder trustee and his
name finds mention in the order dated 09.01.1969 and the trust deed
and is also available in their register is very much alive, which makes
the order passed by the Collector/trust vulnerable.
20. It was also argued that though the applications were submitted by
the Chief Trustee and trustees for correction in the register, if the
correction is not made by the Registrar or its authorities, no one else is
to be blamed specially the petitioner and on its basis it cannot be said
that the petitioners were/are not valid trustees much less when there is
no objection by any person and when no material is available before
Registrar, Public Trust, thus coming to such conclusion is bad in law
and thus, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.
21. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the order of this
Court passed in W.P. No.1412/2007 dated 13.07.2010 had argued that
the decision of the Registrar, Public Trust for revoking the trust and
initiating proceedings under Section 26 of M.P. Public Trust Act
before the District Judge, Gwalior were held to be bad in law and the
matter was relegated back to the Registrar to again pass fresh speaking
order with regard to any mismanagement of the trust and if it was
found, then he was given a liberty to submit a fresh application before
the District Judge and in pursuance to the said remand, notices were
issued to the then trustees on 07.10.2010, 19.08.2010 and 07.10.2010
and vide proceedings in a case no.3/15-16/13/113(4) was registered
and enquiry was directed to be conducted by Tehsildar, who vide his
report dated 08.05.2014 submitted on 06.11.2008, mentioned that
present petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Chief Trustee by the
trustees present i.e. Deshbandhu Sharma, Keshav Pandey,
Radhacharan Pandey, Ramswaroop Shashtri, Rambabu Agarwal
Sarraf, Sharad Kumar Bharadwaj and accordingly, the report was
submitted, but ignoring the said report vide order dated 11.07.2016 the
Sub Divisional Officer (revenue), who acted as a Registrar, Public
Trust rejected the application for correcting the register, which when
challenged before the District Judge, in appeal No.90/2017 was
affirmed vide order dated 26.08.2017, but both the orders were later
on set aside by this Court in writ petition No.16088/2017 dated
21.08.2020 and the matter was again remitted back to the Registrar,
Public Trust/Collector for fresh adjudication of the case on merits, but,
again this time without considering the factual scenario of the matter
the application was rejected, which is per se illegal.
22. Learned Senior counsel has lastly argued that as per Section 9 of
M.P. Public Trust Act, the Registrar on receiving a report with regard
to change in any entries recorded in the register, after making such
enquiry has been felt necessary, if satisfied that change is
occurred/necessary in any of the entries recorded in the register in
regard to a public trust shall record a finding with reasons therefore,
and amend the entries in such register in accordance with such
findings, but as the applications preferred by the present petitioner
No.2 for making amendment in the register were not entertained,
rather were rejected, the application of provisions of Section 8 as
provided under Sub Section (3) of Section 9 would not be attracted
and the petitioners would not have any remedy to prefer a suit against
the findings given by the Registrar, Public Trust, therefore, this Court
by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can very
well set aside the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust directing
it to amend the register of the trust on the basis of applications
preferred by the trustees at various point of times. On the basis of
aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the present petition be
allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. Consequently, the
impugned order (Annexure P/1) be set aside and direction issued to the
Sub Divisional Officer to recommend and appoint new trustees as well
as the order dated 04.05.2022 appointing new trustees be also quashed.
23. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while placing reliance in
the matter of Rambai and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others passed in W.P. No.7621/2025 dated 07.03.2025; had argued
that the Registrar, Public Trust after categoric satisfaction has rejected
the application, which is definitely a finding recorded by the Registrar
and as per Sub Section (3) of Section 9, against such finding in view
of Section 8, a civil suit would be maintainable before Civil Court for
challenging the said order, thus, in view of aforesaid, since the
petitioner has remedy of preferring civil suit in terms of Section 8/9 of
the Act of 1951, the present petition be dismissed.
24. Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for respondent No.5 while
placing reliance in the matter of Paras kumar Vs. Registrar, Public
Trust reported in 1984 MPWN 436; had argued that as the petitioner
has specific alternative remedy to file a suit under Section 8 of M.P.
Public Trust Act, the petition is not maintainable and, therefore, is
liable to be dismissed.
25. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.6 to
11 submitted that there is no entry in register of the trust of the names
of the trustees, who were appointed vide various resolutions, therefore,
the contention of the petitioners regarding alleged nomination of
appointment of various persons as a Chief/working trustee and/or
trustees is not only vague but also contrary to law in view of the
provisions of Section 67 of the Act.
26. Learned Senior counsel has also argued that the petitioner No.2
had not filed any of the application or resolution passed by the duly
nominated/appointed trustees by the Registrar, Public Trust or
majority of the members of the board of the trustees, whereby
appointing/nominating him as a Chief/ Working Trustee or trustee,
which could not have made it possible for Registrar, Public Trust or
this Court to hold that petitioner No.2 at any point of time was
appointed as a trustee or Chief Trustee of the trust in question, thus the
finding of the Collector in that regard cannot be said to be bad and
faulted with.
27. Learned Senior counsel has also argued that as per the Scheme of
the Act and Rules of 1962 framed thereunder, it is evident that the
enquiry under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules, has
to be made on receiving an application for registration of Public Trust,
but no such enquiry as contemplated above was made while exercising
the powers under Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules
for the matter relating to any change in existing entries in the register
of the Trust under Section 7 of the Act by the Registrar of the Trust for
filling of the vacancy occurred in the Board of the Trustees by the
Registrar of the Trust and since there was no enquiry as contemplated
above and amendment in the register, vide the very resolution dated
08.10.2006, the petitioner No.2 could not have acquired the status of
Chief Trustee as resolution itself was bad in law, thus, the very
application preferred by the petitioner No.2 was rightly rejected. In
support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance
in the matter of Shri Ramjanki Mandir Trust Vs. State of M.P. and
others, reported in AIR 1990 MP 41.
28. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that as per the trust
deed, Mahant Jagannath Das ji was the founder of the Trust and Gouri
Shankar, DeshBandhu Sharma, Ramsingh Bharadwaj, Phoolchand,
Sunderlal, Rambabu s/o Pannalal, Chokhelal Sharma and Narayan Rao
Shejwalkar were nominated as Trustees and Mahant Jagannath Das ji
was nominated as Chief Working Trustee. Learned counsel further
argued that for filling up the vacancy of the Board of Trustees, the
trust deed provided procedure and in the eventuality of arising of
vacancy the trustees by way of majority could fill up the vacancy and
appoint new trustees and after registration as a Public Trust upto the
year 1985-86 almost all the Trustee except Deshbandhu Sharma and
Rambabu Agarwal (petitioner No.1) had expired, due to which
vacancy in the Board of Trustee occurred and in the year 1986 and
1991 amended entries of the nomination of Shri Rameshwar Das as
Working Trustee, Shri Sitaram Sharan Das, Shri O.P. Saraswat as
Trustee were made in the Register of Trust by SDO, Gwalior, but after
that the vacancy in Board of Trustee occurred due to the death of other
Trustees, was never been informed to the Registrar Public
Trust/Collector Gwalior, as mandatorily required under Section 9
and/or 25 of the Act, nor has been filled up, thus, the very resolution
dated 08.10.2006, whereby petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Chief
Trustee was an illegal resolution.
29. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to the judgment passed in
the matter of Santosh Singh Rathore Vs. State of M.P. (supra) further
argued that when in the earlier round in writ petition No.16088/2017
the order dated 21.08.2020 it was held that till 08.11.2021 there was
no delegation of powers by the Registrar, Public Trust/Collector as per
the terms of Section 34-A of the Act to the Sub Divisional Officer, the
reliance placed upon various documents including applications, order
sheets recorded in cases initiated in the Court of Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue), notices issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
were all illegal, as he had no jurisdiction to exercise powers of
Registrar, Public Trust at that moment. In alternate, it was argued that
the documents, which had been relied by the petitioners though were
addressed to Registrar, Public Trust but either were not submitted or if
submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) by the
petitioner, or were issued or initiated by the SDO and since the SDO
was not having any jurisdiction, has no illegal value prior to
08.11.2021, the date on which powers were delegated by Registrar,
Public Trust to him, thus on the basis of such documents petitioners
cannot claim any advantage.
30. Learned counsel has also argued that evidently there is no entry in
the Register of Trust of the names of the persons appointed as
Trustees, therefore, the contention of the petitioners regarding alleged
nomination/appointment of various persons as Chief/ Working Trustee,
and /or Trustees is not only vague but also contrary to law in view of
provision of Section 7 of the Act.
31. Lastly, it was argued that the petitioner No.2 had not filed any of
the alleged resolutions passed by the duly nominated/appointed
trustees before the Registrar, Public Trust or the majority of members
of Board of Trustee, thereby appointments/ nominations of either as
Chief/Working Trustee or Trustee could be ascertained before this
Court nor said documents were filed before Collector/Registrar, Public
Trust, Gwalior and straight away he had filed a resolution dated
06.10.2006, which is of no consequence. Also since, the order dated
30.12.2020 has been passed on an application submitted by petitioner
No.2 and 6 other persons (alleged trustees), but only petitioner No.2
had challenged the said order and others have not challenged it and
having been not challenged by them, the same has attained finality so
far they are concerned and also since the petitioner No.2 prior to
passing of the order dated 04.05.2022 was not even trustee of the trust
inspite of it he has alienated the valuable land of the trust by executing
the registered sale deed showing himself as Chief/Working of the
Trust and had also got executed the registered sale deed through other
person, which is an illegal act committed by petitioner No.2, which
has rightly been taken care of vide impugned orders. Thus, it was
prayed, that the present petition being devoid of merits be dismissed.
32. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
33. Section 9 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 deals with change in
the entries of the Register of a Public Trust whenever such change
occurs. For reference Section 9 of the Act of 1951 is hereby quoted
below:-
Section 9 in The M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951
9. Change:-
(1)Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the
register, the working trustee shall, within ninety days from the
date of the occurrence of such change or where any change is
desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of the
such public trust, report in the prescribed manner such change
or proposed change to the Registrar.
(2)If, on receipt of such report and after making such enquiry' as
the Registrar may consider necessary, the Registrar is satisfied
that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entries
recorded in the register in regard to a particular public trust, he
shall record a finding with the reason therefor and subject to the
provisions contained in sub-section (3) amend the entries in the
said register in accordance with such finding.
(3)The provisions of Section 8 shall apply to any finding under
this section as they apply to a finding under Section 6.
34. The provisions of Section 9 are attracted whenever there is any
change or entries recorded in the Register due to resignation, death etc.
of the existing Trustees and for that Working Trustees are required to
report in prescribed manner such change or proposed change to the
Registrar, Public Trust/Collector. Section 9 is wide enough to enable
the Registrar to make any change in the entries recorded in the register
"in the interest of administration of a Public Trust," and upon receipt
of such report and after making such enquiry as the Registrar deems fit
and is satisfied that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the
entries recorded in the register in regard to a particular Public Trust, he
shall record a finding with the reason, therefore, and subject to the
provisions contained in Sub Section (3) amend the entries in the said
register in accordance with such finding.
35. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act of 1951 provides that
provisions of Section 8 shall apply to any finding under this section as
they apply to a finding under Section 6. The aforesaid provision, thus,
infers that whenever the Registrar upon satisfaction that a change has
occurred in the constitution of the trust or is necessary in any of the
entries recorded in the register, shall record a finding with the reasons
thereof and amends the entries in the said register, such findings can
be challenged by any Working Trustees or persons aggrieved having
interest in the Public Trust or any property found to be of the trust in a
civil suit before civil Court as per Section 8, but herein case the
amendment has been refused, thus, the satisfaction has been recorded
in negative, which according to this Court, would not attract the
provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the M.P. Public Trust Act,
1951, therefore, the remedy of civil suit is not available to the
petitioner. The contentions, therefore, raised on behalf of counsel for
the State and other respondents is misconceived and, therefore, is
hereby discarded.
36. On the basis of order passed by this Court in W.P. No.16088/2017
dated 21.08.2020 an argument has been raised on behalf of private
respondents that since it has been held that prior to 08.11.2021 the date
on which the powers were delegated to the Sub Divisional Officer to
act as a Registrar, Public Trust as per Section 34-A of the Act of 1951,
the entire proceedings carried out by the Sub Divisional Officer
(revenue) prior to that were nullity is concerned, it is true to say that as
per the provisions of Section 34-A of the Act, an order in writing by
the Registrar of Public Trust delegating all or any of his powers or
duties under the act to any Revenue Officer and such Revenue officer
to whom powers are delegated is not within the rank of Sub Divisional
Officer is sine qua non for exercising such powers and would not
however, ipso facto result into any ex post facto delegation and in each
case it is required to be inquired whether in that case there was in fact
an order in writing by the Registrar delegating all his powers under the
Act. Thus, when the provisions of Section 34-A of the Act of 1951
clearly stipulates that the power of Registrar, Public Trust exercised by
Sub Divisional Officer would be only in a condition that there was an
order in writing, in absence of any material available before this Court
the earlier orders/entries done by the Sub Divisional Officer comes
under cloud.
37. Be that as it may. Since the earlier orders/entries had not been
challenged on earlier occasion before any forum after remand nor
there is any material before this Court to come to a conclusion that
there was no previous delegation of powers of Registrar, Public Trust
to the SDO, this Court presumes that orders passed by the then SDO
was in pursuance to the delegation of powers under Section 34-A of
the Act.
38. From the extract of the register appended as Annexure P/3-A to the
petition, it is reflected that the last entry with regard to any change in
the management was in pursuance to order dated 21.12.2000. The
petitioners had filed certain applications as Annexure P/4 colly and
had stated that though applications for correction in the register was
moved before the Sub Divisional Officer/Registrar, Public Trust in
proper format as provided under Rule 6(1) of M.P. Public Trust Rules,
1962 but even after registering case separately and issuing notices to
the general public had not passed any orders and had made an excuse
that the file of the case was missing. This fact has not been
controverted either by the State or private respondents in their
respective replies. Thus, the fact pleaded by the petitioners had when
unrebutted, which appears to have not been considered by the
Collector/Registrar, Public Trust.
39. The counsel for the respondents No.5 to 10 in the reply had just
alleged that since the SDO was not having any jurisdiction to entertain
such applications in absence of any delegation of powers of Registrar
as per Section 34-A of the Act of 1951 all the proceedings before him
were patently illegal and void, but as this Court has already observed
that no material has been placed before it to come to a conclusion that
there was no delegation of powers to the SDO at that moment to
exercise power of Registrar, Public Trust, not deciding the applications
appears to be not proper and would amount to curtailing the rights of a
person to be inducted as trustee/chief trustee in the register of Public
Trust.
40. In the entire return respondents No.5 to 10 had averred the fact that
since the Sub Divisional Officer was not having any jurisdiction to
exercise powers of the Registrar, Public Trust, any proceedings
initiated before it or any order/notice passed or issued by him were
nullity, if taken to be true then the matter is required to be relegated
back to the Registrar, Public Trust/Collector to analyze/consider all
those applications, which were preferred for induction/amendment in
the register of Public Trust and in that context the orders passed by the
Collector/Registrar, Public Trust dated 30.12.2020 and the directions
issued by Deputy Collector dated 13.01.2021 and the order passed by
the Sub Divisional Officer/Registrar, Public Trust dated 04.05.2022
would become nugatory, as the earlier applications for
inducting/amending the register had been considered by the competent
authority i.e. Registrar, Public Trust, thus, would required
reconsideration.
41. In the aforesaid eventuality, upon saying of the respondents, the
matter is required to be relegated back for fresh adjudication.
42. As it has been held in the earlier part of order that since no
material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate the factum
of the Sub Divisional Officer being not competent to exercise power
of Registrar, Public Trust, the exercise of powers till the order dated
21.12.2000 cannot be said to be bad in law and as the later orders have
already been set aside by this Court in W.P. No.16088/2017 vide order
dated 21.08.2020, the Registrar, Public Trust was required to even
consider the earlier applications pending after 21.12.2000 before it, as
no material has been brought before this Court to show as to whether
the earlier applications preferred for change in the names of the
trustees in the register of Trust were considered and on either way they
were decided.
43. Another fact, which needs consideration is that the Registrar,
Public Trust vide order dated 30.12.2020 has observed that in the
meeting conducted on 19.07.1986 (mentioned as 1996) following
trustees, namely, Chokhelal Sharma, Deshbandhu Sharma, Kamalkant
Sharma, N.D. Parsure, Rambabu Agarwal, Remeshwar Das, Sharad
Kumar Bharadwaj, Madan Lal Sharma and Ramcharan Sharma were
present, out of which name of Deshbandhu Sharma was only
mentioned as a trustee in the register and rest all the names were not
found to be mentioned, therefore, the other persons, who had
participated in the meeting cannot be held to be legal trustee appears
to be not in accordance with record as extract of Annexure P/3-A as
per the entry made in 1986, it is reflected that vide resolution dated
10.11.1986 since Rameshwar Das was appointed as a Mahant, the
other trustees had elected him as a Working Trustee and further in the
entry it is mentioned that vide resolution dated 09.08.1986 in place of
Rameshwar Das, name of Sitaram Sharan Das was inducted as
Trustee, but in the order there is no mention of Sitaram Sharan Das as
Trustee and thus, has held the resolution dated 19.07.1996 to be bad in
law. To this extent also the order appears to be bad.
44. Apart from the aforesaid, in the order it has been mentioned that
except for Deshbandhu Sharma no names of other persons who had
participated in the meeting and had passed the resolution for
appointment of other trustees or petitioner No.2 finds mention in the
Register of the Trust appears to be a perverse finding, as petitioner
No.1 Rambabu Agarwal, who is a founder Trustee of the Trust Mandir
Shri Ramjanki Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior and his name finds
mention in the trust deed at serial No.7 had been left out of
consideration, thus, it appears that Registrar, Public Trust/Collector
had not appreciated the record in its right perspective.
45. Thus, this Court finds that the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by
the Collector/Registrar, Public Trust suffers from patent illegality and
perversity, as without considering the earlier applications preferred for
inducting new trustees/amend register in total misappreciation of
record, it has been passed.
46. Resultantly, the order dated 30.12.2020 is hereby set aside. The
matter is relegated back to the Registrar, Public Trust/Collector for
reappreciation of the material available on record as well as
applications pending after 21.12.2000 filed before Sub Divisional
Officer acting as Registrar, Public Trust and also appreciate the
register of trust in its proper perspective and pass orders afresh.
Consequently, the very appointment of the Sub Divisional Officer as
trustee goes and is hereby set aside, making the order dated
04.05.2022 appointing new 08 trustees of Trust Mandir Shri Ramjanki
Gangadas Ki Badi Shala, Gwalior redundant.
47. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed to the above
extent and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
SHAS
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e
066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27ea
a2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAA
HANK
DE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF
0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2025.06.17 17:36:17 +05'30'
