Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Gopal And Ors vs Commi. Devasthan Udaipur And Ors on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 563/1997
Madan Gopal through his LRs & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Devasthan Udaipur & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Samdariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit with
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 16/08/2023
Pronounced on 06/09/2023
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and a Writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition or in any
other appropriate form may kindly be issued quashing the
impugned Judgments Annexures 10 and 11 respectively
passed by the Respondents No.2 & 1.
And any other relief favourable to the petitioners may
kindly be granted looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioners, are that one Shankar Lal, Shiv Narain,
petitioner-Madan Gopal (since deceased represented through LRs
herein) and Amrit Lal had purchased a plot of land from one
Sethia Bagtawar Chand and Gulechha Pabudan through a
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:35:02 AM)
(2 of 5) [CW-563/1997]
registered sale deed in Samvat Year 1973 (30.11.1916);
thereafter, Amrit Lal moved an application on 12.06.1919 for grant
of patta in respect of the land in question and the same was
issued on 12.07.1920; whereafter, the petitioners constructed a
building on the land in question.
2.1. Subsequently, one Mag Dutta filed an application before the
Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur, stating therein that
the property (land in question) is a Public Trust property, to be
utilized for charitable purposes, and thus, the petitioners have no
right on the property in question. The Assistant Commissioner vide
the impugned order dated 22.04.1991, ordered for treating the
property in question to be a Public Trust property and also directed
for registration thereof accordingly, and for the said purpose,
necessary documents were directed to be filed within a period of
one month from the date of the said order.
2.2. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 22.04.1991, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner
Devasthan, Udaipur, but the same was dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 13.08.1996. Hence, the present petition
has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tenant
Mag Dutta, with a mala fide intention, had filed the
aforementioned application for the registration in question, despite
the fact that no occasion therefor could have arisen, in the present
factual matrix. It was further submitted that the petitioners got
the patta of the land in question with an intention to construct
Umaid Sarai, and that, the said property was their personal
property, and not the property of any Public Trust.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:35:02 AM)
(3 of 5) [CW-563/1997]
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had
never divested the property in question to any Trust for charitable
purposes. It was also submitted that the petitioners and their
ancestors constructed a building on the land in question out of
their own money and some part of the building in question was
given on rent. Thus, the impugned orders are not justified in law.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners also filed
a suit against one tenant-Jairaj and the same was decreed by the
learned District Judge, Jodhpur, and therefore, the land in
question is the personal property of the petitioners, and not
belonged to any Public Trust.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the property in
question deserves to be utilized for charitable purposes and for
the benefit of public at large, and for construction of a Sarai
known as Umaid Sarai, Rs. 10,000/- had already been allotted,
which was also mentioned in the application dated 12.06.1919 of
the petitioners, for issuance of patta.
4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners have
constructed some shops and let out the same on rent, and such
rent was to be utilized for expenditures of Sarai, meant for
charitable purposes.
4.2. It was also submitted that as per the report dated
04.02.1984 of the site inspection conducted by the Assistant
Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Sarai had been
constructed for public purposes.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:35:02 AM)
(4 of 5) [CW-563/1997]
4.3. It was further submitted that if any person was against the
registration in question under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public
Trust Act, 1959, then objections could have been filed for
cancellation/modification of such registration, by availing the
appropriate remedy of instituting a civil suit, as per Section 21 of
the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Therefore, as per learned
counsel, on that count alone, the present petition is not
maintainable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the petitioners had purchased the
land in question through the sale deed of Samvat Year 1973,
whereafter, Amrit Lal moved an application on 12.06.1919 for
grant of patta and the same was issued on 12.07.1920.
Thereafter, the petitioners constructed a building on the land in
question. Subsequently, one Mag Dutta filed an application before
the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan, Jodhpur for treating the
property to be a property of Public Trust and for issuance of
certain directions; the said application was allowed vide the
impugned order dated 22.04.1991, as mentioned above. The
petitioners being aggrieved thereby preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur, but the same was dismissed
vide the impugned order dated 13.08.1996.
7. This Court further observes that as per the rent receipt,
Electricity and Water Bills, the property in question is a
Dharmasala and entire building structure as well as other things
clearly reflects the same. This Court also observes that the
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:35:02 AM)
(5 of 5) [CW-563/1997]
Dharmshala on the land in question was constructed in the year
1919-1920.
8. This Court also observes that as per the aforementioned site
inspection report dated 04.02.1984, it is clear that after
considering all the relevant aspects, it was stated that the
Dharmshala was constructed on the property in question for the
public and charitable purposes.
9. This Court further observes that the petitioners got the patta
in the name of Umaid Sarai for public benefit, and the whole
purpose of the petitioners behind obtaining such patta was that
the land in question shall be utilized for public and charitable
purposes, and for the said purpose, the Dharamshala was
constructed over the land in question.
10. This Court also observes that after duly considering and
appreciating the material and evidence placed on record, the
concurrent findings were recorded vide the impugned orders,
which are perfectly justified in law.
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking
into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not
find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the
present petition.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
application disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
