Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Modudas & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 12 May, 2017
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5404 / 2017
1. Modudas S/o Late Dalsukhdas,, Aged About 73 Years, B/c Kamar, R/o - Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (RAJ).
2. Rameshwardas S/o Nanudas,, Aged About 62 Years, B/c Kamar, R/o - Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (RAJ).
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Raj., Through Its District Collector,, Hanumangarh (RAJ)
2. The Commissioner,, Department of Devasthan, Udaipur (RAJ).
3. The Assistant Commissioner,, Department of Devasthan, Hanumangarh (RAJ)
4. Dhanpatram S/o Roopram,, B/c Meghwal, R/o - Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (RAJ).
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasi, Adv.
_____________________________________________________ JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 12/05/2017 By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.04.2017, passed in Civil Original Suit No.37/2016, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, allowed an application filed by respondent No.4 Dhanpat Ram, seeking his impleadment in the suit filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs.
Facts of the present case are that the petitioners filed a suit for Permanent Injunction seeking an order for restraint qua defendants No.1 to 3, namely State of Rajasthan, Commissioner 2 Devasthan and Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan from creating and registering the Trust under the Public Trust Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'Public Trust Act).
The applicant by way of his application contended that the dispute relating to the registration of a Temple under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, which is known as "Mandir Shri Ramdevji" accepts public donations and offerings, and as such he along with the residents of village had taken up proceedings for it registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and moved the Devasthan Department. It was also stated by the applicant that pursuant to his application, the Defendants No.2 & 3 have issued public notice and he has been involved in all such proceedings. It was also indicated that the land in question has been recorded in the name of Temple, whereas the plaintiff being pujari of the Temple is claiming himself to be the owner of land. In view of these facts, it was stated that looking to the nature of the suit, the applicant be impleaded as defendant, to assist the Court, as the plaintiff wants to stall the proceedings of Registration of the Trust.
Petitioners opposed impleadment application in question by saying that no relief has been sought against the applicant and the applicant has no right to interject in the suit proceedings.
The learned Trial Court vide order under scrutiny allowed the application seeking impleadment filed by the respondent No.4 Dhanpat Ram, inter alia observing that the entire proceedings for registering the temple and temple property under the provisions of Public Trust Act was initiated at the instance of the applicant, 3 thus he has an important role in the matter, and his presence is required for proper and effective adjudication of all the questions involved in the case.
Challenging the order dated 13.04.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the rights of the applicant- respondent No.4 are involved in the present lis and the land in question indisputably belong to the petitioners; that the application filed by the applicant was not supported by an affidavit and as such, the same was not competent; inviting the attention of this Court towards order dated 25.07.1984, he submitted that a competent Civil Court had recorded the findings that the land in question is in the Khatedari of the plaintiffs, as such the applicant has no locus to contest the suit.
I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Devasi and considered the material available on record.
As far as argument of Mr. Devasi regarding the ownership of the land of the plaintiffs is concerned, without going into the title and ownership of the land, suffice it to observe that looking to the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiffs, ownership of the land is not required to be gone into inasmuch, as plaintiffs have sought an injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from registering the Trust under the Public Trust Act. The respondent No.4-applicant Dhanpat Ram had admittedly sensitised and moved the defendants Nos.1 to 3, the officers of the Devasthan Department, for registering the temple under the provisions of Public Trust Act. As such, the Court below has committed no error of law in impleading respondent No.4, Dhanpat Ram as party. Argument 4 of Mr. Devasi in relation to the order dated 25.07.1984, wherein the land in question had been held to be under the Khatedari rights of plaintiff, is also liable to be rejected. Suffice it to say that as observed earlier, that the issue involved in the present suit is not about Khatedari rights or ownership and title of the land, but as to whether the Temple is a public Trust or not required to be registered under the Act. Substance of argument advanced by Mr. Devasi revolves around ownership of the land and corresponding revenue entries, but the plaintiff has filed the suit for restraining the Defendants No.1 to 3 from registering the Trust.
On a prima facie appraisal of the facts and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that newly added Defendant No.23 will help the Court in effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 had set the machinery in motion and he is a resident of the area and person concerned, who has claimed that the land in question which for ages belonged to the Temple has been got allegedly recorded in the name of plaintiff. As such, though individual or personal rights of the applicant are directly not at peril in the subject suit, his presence cannot be said to be unwarranted. Dhanpat Ram, Respondent No.4 is a proper party and his presence will help the Court in deciding all the question involved in the Suit.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application for impleadment was not supported by the affidavit and thus was not competent, but has neither showed any statutory provision or judgment to substantiate such argument. This argument, sans any 5 legal limbs is untenable in law. More so this argument was not raised before the Court below. In this view of the matter, contention of Mr.Dewasi is thus rejected.
Apart from this, if the Trial Court , in its discretion has permitted the Respondent No.4 to be impleaded as a party, so as to ensure complete and proper adjudication of the lis before it, this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to overturn such an order.
By way of the order impugned, no failure of justice has been caused to the petitioners. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is rejected.
(DINESH MEHTA)J. Mamta/164