[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ranjeetmal Ganeshmal Vyas Dharamshala vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:14680]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24949/2025

1.       Ranjeetmal     Ganeshmal Vyas   Dharamshala,  Ramdevra
         (Runicha) Through Managing Trustee Abhishek Acharya S/o
         Late Sh. Anand Kumar Acharya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
         Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.
2.       Abhishek Acharya S/o Late Sh. Anand Kumar Acharya, Aged
         About 41 Years, R/o Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
         Government, Department of Devasthan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur.
3.       Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur.
4.       Khushalchand S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das, Resident of
         Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.
5.       Sundarlal Vyas S/o Premnarayan Vyas, Resident Of Chhabili
         Ghati, Bikaner.
6.       Jitendra Vyas S/o Premnarayan Vyas, Resident Of Chhabili
         Ghati, Bikaner.
7.       Naveen Kumar Vyas S/o Premnarayan Vyas, Resident of
         Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Virendra Acharya


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                                      ORDER

Reserved on: 25/03/2026 Pronounced on: 30/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking the

following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and;

(a) by appropriate writ, order or direction, proceedings in pursuance of Application in Form no. 8 (Annex. 16) pending before respondent No. 3 Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Dept., Jodhpur in case no. 2/2025/Jaisalmer titled as

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:18:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14680] (2 of 6) [CW-24949/2025]

Khushalchand Vyas v/s. Abhishek Acharya, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(b) by appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned order dated 02.12.2025 (Annex.22) passed by respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Dept., Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(c) by appropriate writ, order or direction, application (Annex.

20) filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(d) by appropriate writ, order or direction, Application in Form no. 8 (Annex. 16) pending before respondent No. 3 Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Dept., Jodhpur in case no.

2/2025/Jaisalmer titled as Khushalchand Vyas v/s. Abhishek Acharya, may kindly be dismissed & quashed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute

in the present writ petition pertains to the management and

trusteeship of Ranjeetmal Ganeshmal Vyas Dharamshala Trust. It

was submitted that respondent No. 4 is son of Ghanshyam Das,

who was the grandson of Ganeshram. Ganeshram was the

executor of the trust deed executed between Kishanlal (the

adopted son of Ranjeetmal) and Ganeshram for the management

of the aforesaid trust.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner

(Abhishek Acharya), being the Management Trustee of the Trust,

had filed an application under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public

Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") in

the prescribed format for effecting changes in the entries recorded

in the register maintained by the Devasthan Department. The said

application was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2000 by the

Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur, on the

ground that the issue regarding succession to Kishanlal who had

executed the trust deed with Ganeshram was a civil dispute,

triable only by a competent civil court. The appeal preferred

against the order dated 16.03.2000 was also dismissed by the

Commissioner, Devasthan Department, vide order dated

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:18:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14680] (3 of 6) [CW-24949/2025]

25.02.2002. Simultaneously, a direction was issued that, since

Kishanlal Vyas (the then working trustee) had expired,

proceedings under Section 41 of the Act of 1959 for appointment

of a new working trustee be initiated.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 25.02.2002

was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 404/2005. This Court, vide order dated

18.07.2005, had stayed the operation and effect of the impugned

order dated 25.02.2002. It was further submitted that despite the

subsistence of the said interim order, respondent No. 4 filed an

application under Section 41 of the Act of 1959 seeking

appointment of a new working trustee, which was allowed by the

Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.07.2019. The

petitioner thereafter challenged the said order by filing S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 1987/2020, wherein this Court, vide order dated

10.02.2020, stayed the operation of the order dated 09.07.2019.

5. Learned counsel contended that, despite being fully aware of

the subsisting stay orders, respondent No. 4 filed an application

under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 before the Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan, seeking changes in the entries

recorded in the register. Upon learning of the same, the

petitioners filed an application praying that the proceedings under

Section 23 be stayed till the S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 404/2005

and 1987/2020 are finally decided. However, the said application

was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2025 on the ground that

proceedings under Section 23 (relating to recording of changes in

the register) are distinct from proceedings under Section 41

(relating to appointment of a working trustee), and that no stay

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:18:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14680] (4 of 6) [CW-24949/2025]

had been granted by this Court in respect of proceedings under

Section 23 of the Act of 1959.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an

application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 can only be filed

by a working trustee. It was argued that the dispute regarding the

appointment of the working trustee of the Trust is still pending

adjudication in the aforesaid writ petitions. Therefore, respondent

No. 4, not being a duly appointed working trustee, is not eligible

to file an application under Section 23, and such application

cannot be considered until the aforesaid dispute is finally resolved.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the present writ petition is premature, as the proceedings

under Section 23 have not yet been finalized and no adverse order

has been passed against the petitioners. It was contended that

Sections 23 and 41 operate in distinct fields. While Section 23

proceedings are limited to verification and recording of changes in

the register, they do not adjudicate or determine rights relating to

trusteeship. It was further submitted that there is no stay order

restraining proceedings under Section 23.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. For ready reference, the relevant provisions are reproduced

below:

"Section 23 - Changes:

(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 such public trust, the working trustee may, report in the prescribed form and manner such change or proposed change to the Assistant Commissioner.

(2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Assistant Commissioner may hold an inquiry.

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:18:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14680] (5 of 6) [CW-24949/2025]

(3) If, after holding such inquiry as he may consider necessary under sub-section (2) either on receipt of a report under sub- section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entries recorded in the register in regard to the particular public trust, he shall record a finding with the reasons therefore and the provisions of section 29 shall apply to such finding as they apply to a finding under section 19.

(4) The Assistant Commissioner shall cause the entries in the register to be amended in accordance with the finding recorded under sub-section (3) or, if an appeal has been filed therefrom, in accordance with decision of the Commissioner on such appeal and the provisions of section 21 and 22 shall apply to such amended entries as they apply to the original entries."

Section 41 - Application for appointment of new working trustee: (1) If the present working trustee of a public trust -

(a) disclaims or dies,

(b) is for a continuous period of six months absent from India without leave of the Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner or other officer authorized by the State Government,

(d) desires to be discharged from the trust,

(e) refuses to act as a trustee,

(f) becomes unfit or physically incapable to act in the trust, or

(g) is not available to administer the trust, such working trustee or any person having interest in the public trust, as the case may be, may apply to Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for permission to apply to the court for the appointment of a new working trustee.

(2) The Assistant Commissioner, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary and, where the application has not been made by the working trustee himself after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct such working trustee or any other trustee or persons having interest in the new working trustee, and where the person so directed fails to make such an application or for any other reason the Assistant Commissioner considers it expedient so to do, he shall himself make the application."

10. Upon consideration of the submissions made and a perusal of

Sections 23 and 41 of the Act of 1959, along with the interim

orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.

404/2005 and 1987/2020, this Court finds that an application for

recording changes in the register can be made in the interest of

proper administration of the public trust, only by a working trustee

of Trust. The record reflects that the dispute regarding the

appointment of a working trustee of the Trust has not yet attained

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:18:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14680] (6 of 6) [CW-24949/2025]

finality, and the orders passed by the authority initiating the

appointment of a new working trustee at the instance of