Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagjiwan Lal vs State And Ors (2023:Rj-Jd:42753-Db) on 7 December, 2023
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:42753-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2457/1983
1. Lrs of Jagjeewan Lal Bhandari
1/1. Narendra Kumar Bhandari S/o Late Jagjeewan Lal Bhandari
aged about 57 years.
1/2. Sanjay Prakash Bhandari S/o Late Jagjeewan Lal Bhandari.
1/3. Smt. Narbada Devi Bhandari W/o Late Jagjeewan Lal
Bhandari.
¼. Krishan lal Bhandari S/o Late Jagjeewan Lal Bhandari.
(All R/o Near Rishabhdeoji Temple, Rishabhdeoji, District
Udaipur).
2. Lrs of Smt. Sunder Devi
2/1. Purushotam Lal S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Aged about
72 years.
2/2. Keshav Lal S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Aged about 68
years.
2/3. Ashok Bhandari S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Aged about
54 years.
(All by caste Bhandari Audichya Brahmin, R/o Shilpi Mohalla,
Rishbhdeo, Tehsil Kesariyaji District Udaipur).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Prabhari Adhikari (Officer in charge) Shri Rishabhdeoji
Temple, Village Rishbdeo, Tehsil Khairwara, District Udaipur.
5. Shri Balwant Singh Mehta Vishesh Adhikari (Special Officer)
Commissioner Officer, Devesthan Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
6. Smt. Laxmi Devi D/o Late Shri Bhanwani Shankar Bhandadri
W/o Shri Praveen Ji.
7. Smt. Shukantala D/o Late Shri Bhanwani Shankar Bhandari
W/o Krishanji Rawal.
8. Ganesh Lal S/o Sajjan Lal Ji Punjawat, Udaipur.
9. Ganpat Singh S/o Kanhiya Lal Ji Kothari, Udaipur, Bhandari
W/o Shri Laxmi Lal Ji Sewak.
(Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:45:20 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:42753-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-2457/1983]
10. Tej Singh S/o Ambalal Ji Dosi, Udaipur. No.8 to 10
representatives of Jain Shwetamber Murti Pujak Sangh, Udaipur.
11. Smt. Kusum D/o Late Shri Bhanwani Shanker, W/o Shri
Laxmi Lal Sewak.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Magan Singh Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit
Mr. Ramit Mehta
Mr. Tarun Dudia
Mr. Srajan Kothari
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
07/12/2023
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner whereby the
petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness and validity of order
dated 03.12.1983 (Annex-22), 01.01.1984 (Annex-23) and
31.05.1986 (Annex-25). By the aforesaid orders and directions,
the share of Bhet which the petitioner was receiving has been
stopped.
3. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner is entitled to receive
the share of Bhet as per the Parvana issued by the then Ruler
being Maharana of Mewar in the Samvat year 1942 (Annex-1).
The Petitioner's grievance is that without affording any opportunity
of hearing and without taking any decision on the petitioner's right
to continue to receive Parvana, the impugned orders have been
passed.
[2023:RJ-JD:42753-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-2457/1983]
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance
upon the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
are as under:-
i) "Madhaorao Phalke Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (Now
Madhya Pradesh) & Anr." AIR 1961 SC 298.
ii) "Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors." AIR 1963 SC 1688
iii) "State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat & Ors."
AIR 1975 SC 706.
5. The stand of the State is that the management of the
Rishbhdeo Temple vests absolutely in the State and, therefore the
petitioners are not entitled to receive any share of Bhet under the
Parvana of the Ruler of Mewar which has come to an end.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents/representatives of Jain Shwetamber Murti Pujak
Sangh, Udaipur would submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
its decision (2007) 10 SCC 528 "Deewan Singh & Ors. Vs.
Rajendra PD. Ardevi & Ors." clearly held that the Rishbhdeo
temple is a Jain temple and not a Hindu temple and the temple
vests absolutely in the State. Therefore, it is contended, that the
petitioners' right, if any, to receive share in the Bhet is lost. He
would also submit that a suit has been filed seeking permanent
injunction against the petitioner which is still pending
consideration.
7. We find that the State issued impugned orders without there
being any order passed with regard to the petitioners' right, if any,
to receive Bhet. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to
continue to receive the share of Bhet under the then Parvana
[2023:RJ-JD:42753-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-2457/1983]
which according to them still continues to remain in force as law.
But, we find that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Deewan Singh (supra) has held that Rishbhdeo Temple is a Jain
temple and not a Hindu Temple. Therefore, the State is required to
take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to the
petitioners' right to receive share of Bhet. The State has not taken
any decision in the matter till date.
8. The order impugned was stayed by this Court way back when
this petition was filed. The interim order is continuing for almost
last four decades.
9. Therefore, in above circumstances, we are inclined to direct
the State to take appropriate decision in the matter one way or
the other. The decision should be taken within outer limit of three
months from today. The interim management which has already
been made shall continue till the decision is taken by the State.
10. Taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Deewan Singh (supra), we consider
it appropriate that private respondents/representatives of Jain
Shwetamber Murti Pujak Sangh, Udaipur is also afforded an
opportunity of hearing by the State.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ
158-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
