Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami vs Assistant Commissioner (I) on 2 May, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14442/2019
Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami, Aged About 48 Years, Chela
Late Mahant Shri Hanuman Das Swami, Resident Of Dadu
Dwara, 1367, Niwai Mahant Ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. Govind Das Swami S/o Shri Deendayal, Resident Of
Village Kansel, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prahlad Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.M.Ranjan, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.Aman Pareek,
Advocate.
Mr.Shailesh Sharma, AGC for
Devasthan Department.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
ORDER
Order Reserved on : 10th March, 2022
REPORTABLE
Date of Order : 2nd May, 2022
By the Court:
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur and the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department. The petitioner has also prayed that Application No.59/17 filed by him under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959') along with Proforma- (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM)
(2 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] 8 may be allowed and the Application No.58/17 filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 along with Proforma-8, may be dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur is a registered Trust having its registration No.321/71 and the said Trust was registered at the instance of late Mahant Shri Ramprasad Das Swami. On death of Mahant Shri Ramprasad Das Swami, Mahant Hanuman Das Swami became sole trustee of the Trust and Mahant Hanuman Das Swami expired on 14.09.2017.
3. The petitioner has pleaded that late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami had adopted him as 'Chaila' during his lifetime, accordingly to customs of Dadu Sect. The petitioner has further pleaded that in all the documents issued in favour of the petitioner like Election Identity Card, PAN Card and Aadhar Card, late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami has been shown as his father.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Pujari/Manager of the temple of Hanumanji and during the lifetime of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, he had executed a declaration dated 25.01.2017, regarding succession in favour of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has averred that the said declaration of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, had declared the petitioner to be the Mahant of Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur. The petitioner on expiry of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami on 14.09.2017, has claimed to have preformed all customs of a 'Chaila' and 'Chaddar Dastoor' was also held by Mahant and Sant of Dadu Sect. (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM)
(3 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] Accordingly a news item was published on 19.09.2017 and certificate was also issued by Pradhan Peeth, Dadu Sampraday (Sect), Narayana in favour of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that on 05.10.2017 he filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 along with proforma-8 before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur for entering his name in the Trust Register in place of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, as the petitioner was declared as Mahant of Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur. The said application filed by the petitioner was registered as Application No.59/17.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.2 filed objection to the above application filed by the petitioner and simultaneously, also filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 along with proforma-8 pleading that he was appointed as Mahant of Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur for which a 'Chaddar Dastoor' was performed by the family members of Mahant Santosh Das and as such, according to the amended constitution of the Trust, his name was required to be entered in the Trust Register in place of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami. The said application filed by the respondent No.2 was registered as Application No.58/17.
8. The petitioner has pleaded that late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami during his lifetime also filed an application No.51/16 for amending the constitution of Trust and also submitted the amended constitution of the Trust but subsequently again an application dated 06.02.2017 for submitting amended constitution (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (4 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] was filed along with the amended constitution. The petitioner has alleged that on the said application, filed by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, hearing of the arguments had taken place on 29.05.2017, however, on death of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami on 14.09.2017, nobody appeared in the proceedings initiated for amendment of the constitution and as such, on 11.03.2019 proceedings of Case No.51/2016 were dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur.
9. The petitioner has pleaded that without there being any application filed, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur revoked the proceedings on 11.03.2019 itself but while passing the order dated 07.06.2019, a separate ordersheet was drawn in Case No.51/2016, whereby amended constitution has been accepted and on the basis of the said amended constitution, the same has been given retrospective effect.
10. The petitioner has pleaded that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur vide order dated 07.06.2019 dismissed the Application No.59/2017 filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and allowed the Application No.58/2017 filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and it has been ordered that the name of respondent No.2 may be entered in the proforma No.4 of the Register.
11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dated 07.06.2019, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2019.
(Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM)
(5 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] 12. The counsel for the petitioner has made following
submissions to challenge the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department and the Commissioner, Devasthan Department dated 07.06.2019 and 15.07.2019 respectively:-
12A. Both the courts below have ignored the very important aspects of the matter that the petitioner was adopted as 'Chaila' by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and all the customs for taking the petitioner as 'Chaila' were performed and all the documents, relating to the petitioner have shown him as son of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami. The declaration dated 25.01.2017 executed by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami in favour of the petitioner declaring him as Mahant of the Trust of Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur has also been ignored.
12B. The courts below have failed to take into account that the respondent No.2 never resided in Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur and no 'Chaddar Dastoor' was performed in Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur but 'Chaddar Dastoor' ceremony was held in the Village Kansel and as such, the respondent No.2 was nowhere concerned with the Dadu Dwara Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur.
12C. Both the courts below have ignored the important fact that amended constitution of the Trust submitted by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami was neither approved nor accepted in his lifetime and on the contrary, the application filed by him in Case No.51/2016, was dropped as no one was (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (6 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] appearing on his behalf. The ordersheet drawn on 11.03.2019, on the same day mentioned in the subsequent order that proceedings relating to same Trust were pending on 25.03.2019. The petitioner has not filed any application on 25.03.2019 to connect all the matters together and the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department on his own tagged all the matters and wrong ordersheets were drawn.
12D. According to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 only change in the Trust Register can be made, however, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has proceeded beyond the power conferred in Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and he has appointed the respondent No.2 as sole trustee whereas Section 23 of the Act of 1959 does not confer power of appointment of new trustee and only changes in Trust Register can be made. 12E. The courts below have failed to consider that the amended constitution, submitted by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami could not be applied retrospectively, as it was not accepted or approved prior to 07.06.2019.
12F. Both the courts below have failed to consider the provisions contained in Section 23, 38 and 40 of the Act of 1959 as the dispute with regard to appointment of a trustee is required to be referred to the Civil Court, on death of existing trustee and since the sole trustee, in the present case, namely late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami expired on 14.09.2017, as such only the petitioner was required to be (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (7 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] treated as working trusteee, as late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami had executed a declaration in petitioner's favour. 12G. The courts below have wrongly based their findings on the orders passed in the Civil proceedings in Civil Courts where the Civil Courts had already observed that the suits filed by the parties, were not for the purpose of succession in any manner.
13. Both the respondents have filed their separate replies.
14. The respondent No.2 has given the history and background of Dadupanthi Samaj, said to be in existing since 16 th century, as the disciples of Dadudayalji Maharaj. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that after death of Mahant Ram Prasad Dasji in the year 2003, late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami was elected and nominated as Mahant of Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur by Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj. Late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami is said to be unmarried and belonging to Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj.
15. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that Dr.Dayaram Swami was also chief disciple (shishya) of Mahant Ram Prasad Dasji Maharaj and he was Guru Bhai of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and residing in Dadu Dwara, Ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur and since he was a married man, he was not elected as Mahant by the Khalsa family.
16. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that on death of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami on 14.09.2017, he was nominated as Mahant by Khalsa Family and thereafter, on 10.10.2017 an application along with proforma No.8 was submitted before the (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (8 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department for change of name and thereafter, the petitioner also submitted an application describing himself to be the successor of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami.
17. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that the petitioner is not a member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj and he belongs to Diggi Malpura and he was working as Pujari in a Hanuman Temple at Amber, Jaipur and after death of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, he made encroachment over the building of Dadu Dwara Ranganj Bazaar, Jaipur and also prepared forged documents.
18. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that after 12 days of death of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, the members of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj and Dadu Panthi Samaj assembled and a resolution was passed for appointment of the respondent No.2 as successor and 'Chaila' of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami. The 'Chadar Dastoor' and procession (julus) of the respondent No.2 and invitation card, etc. have been placed on record with the reply.
19. The respondent No.2, on merits of the matter, has submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department upon receiving both the applications, recorded the evidence and declared the respondent No.2 as successor and Mahant in place of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and he also held that according to form No.6, procedure of succession was done by Dadu Samaj, which has been duly affirmed by the affidavit of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami dated 18.04.2017 and confirmed in the (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (9 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] amended constitution wherein it was specifically stated that only member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj would be given Mahantship and who should also be Neehang (unmarried).
20. The respondent No.2 has also submitted in his reply that one suit was filed by Ram Saran Swami, member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj for injunction and declaration against the petitioner wherein the order was passed restraining the petitioner not to declare himself as heir and successor and in spite of such order, the application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur.
21. The respondent No.2 has also submitted that two separate suits were pending at the time when late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami was alive in which the petitioner and the respondent No.2 both had filed applications to be impleaded as party, whereas the application of the petitioner was rejected and the application of the respondent No.2 was allowed and he was held to be the successor.
22. The respondent No.2 has submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur as well as the Commissioner, Devasthan Department have not committed any illegality and on appreciation of the facts, the application filed by the petitioner and appeal filed by him, have been rightly dismissed.
23. The respondent No.1 has also filed reply to the writ petition. The allegation of change in ordersheet has specifically been (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (10 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] denied. The respondent No.1 has also pleaded that due opportunity was afforded to all the parties to lead evidence in support of their case and after considering the entire merits, the orders have been passed.
24. The Assistant Commissioner while disposing of the application No.58/17 and 59/17 had also taken up the application No.51/16 for hearing in the interest of justice. In application No.51/16, the former sole trustee late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, in his statement dated 18.04.2017 and affidavit dated 22.03.2017 had requested for taking on record amended constitution of the Trust and the parties in the application No.58/17 and 59/17 had also consented and expressed their belief in the said amended constitution and accordingly, in the application No.51/16, form was found to be allowed and accordingly, the same was allowed.
25. Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 Mr.M.M.Ranjan has made following submissions:-
25A. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, Devasthan Department have recorded a finding that the petitioner is not a member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Das and as such, he could not have been appointed as successor of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami in view of the amendment in the constitution. 25B. In the application No.51/16 filed by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, his statement was recorded on 18.04.2017 and it was nowhere disclosed that the petitioner was appointed as Mahant and as per the amended (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (11 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] constitution, wherein the mode of succession was provided, the petitioner was not fulfilling both the requirements, he could not have been appointed as Mahant i.e. neither he was a member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Das nor he was Neehang (unmarried).
25C. The allegation of the petitioner that the application No.51/16 contained manipulations and separate ordersheet was drawn, counsel submitted that there was no signature after the scribe written by the Clerk and the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has put the signatures after recording "punscha" and then he tagged the file with the other applications under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 for recording the changes in the entries.
25D. No conclusive order was passed with regard to dismissal in default because as per Order 20 Rule 3 CPC, the order was deemed to have been passed only after signature of the Presiding Officer and there was no signatures written on the notesheet by the Clerk.
25E. The Civil Court, in a civil suit filed by Ram Saran Swami, member of Khalsa family of Mahant Santosh Dasji and two other suits, filed against late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, after holding enquiry vide orders dated 18.09.2019 and 22.04.2019, had passed order of declaring the respondent No.2 as successor of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and considering the powers conferred under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the facts which have already (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (12 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] been appreciated by both the Courts below, may not be re- appreciated by this Court.
26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
27. Before proceeding in the matter, this Court will first like to advert to the undisputed facts in the present case, which are as follows:-
27(a) The petitioner himself had filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 along with proforma-8. 27(b) The respondent No.2 also filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 along with proforma-8 27(c) Late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami during his lifetime filed an application No.51/2016 for amending the constitution of the Trust and also submitted the amended constitution.
27(d) Late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami filed his affidavit before the Assistant Commissioner and got his statement recorded on 18.04.2017 wherein he admitted that the amended constitution was to be entered and requisite entry was to be made.
27(e) The petitioner, during his cross examination on 22.04.2019, had admitted existence of amended constitution and the petitioner was aware about the proceedings initiated by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami.
27(f) The petitioner admitted the documents and amended constitution filed by late Mahant Hanuman Das (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (13 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] Swami which did not contain the name of the petitioner as working trustee.
27(g) The Civil Suit No.155/2018 was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District wherein late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami was a party and on his death, two separate applications for impleadment as party in the suit, were filed and the application of the petitioner-Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami was dismissed and the application filed by the respondent No.2-Govind Das Swami was accepted.
27(h) The Civil Suit No.352/2012 was pending between late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and the respondent No.2 was made party in the said Civil Suit vide order dated 22.04.2019.
27(i) The Civil Suit No.121/2012 was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan wherein on 10.07.2017, order was passed in the Temporary Injunction Application No.1809/2017 restraining the petitioner to declare himself as successor of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami.
28. This Court finds that the Assistant Commission, while passing the order dated 07.06.2019, has decided three applications by the common order and the application No.59/2017 filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 has been dismissed, application No.58/2017 filed by the respondent No.2 has been allowed and the application No.51/2016 filed by the late Mahant (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (14 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] Hanuman Das Swami has been allowed taking on record the amended constitution of the Trust.
29. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have ignored the fact of the petitioner being adopted as 'Chaila' by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and all the customs for taking the petitioner as 'Chaila' being performed and documents in favour of the petitioner, showing him as son of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, being ignored, this Court finds that the Assistant Commissioner, after taking into account all the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties, has passed by the impugned order.
30. This Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that declaration dated 25.01.2017 made in his favour by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami ought to have been accepted as a proof of successor/working trustee of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami. This Court finds that both the Courts below have taken into account statement of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami which he had given in his application and whereby he did not reveal any declaration made in favour of the present petitioner. This Court also finds that both the Courts below have taken into account the statement made by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, which was recorded before his death in the application, filed by him and the amended constitution was also taken into account for nomination of trustee in the trust-deed.
31. The Courts below have come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that amended constitution at S.No.10 had clearly provided that after death of the managing trustee, next Mahant (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (15 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] would be from Khalsa family of Shri Dadu Panthi Mahant Santosh Dasji Maharaj and he should also be 'Neehang', meaning thereby that he has to be a bachelor.
32. This Court finds that considering the eligibility, as provided in the amended Constitution, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of being declared as working trustee and as such, no fault can be found with such recording of facts by the Courts below.
33. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the amended constitution of the Trust was neither approved nor accepted in the lifetime of late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and the application filed by him in Case No.51/2016, was dropped as no one was present on his behalf and the ordersheet was also drawn on 11.03.2019 to the same effect but again ordersheet was drawn to tag the file with other pending applications and as such, great illegality has been committed by the Assistant Commissioner while deciding the application No.51/2016 filed by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami, this Court, after going through the ordersheet dated 11.03.2019, finds that initially ordersheet was drawn of dropping the proceedings in the Application No.51/2016 but there was no signature on the ordersheet and later on, ordersheet was drawn on the basis of the information given by the parties that relating to the same Trust, other cases were to be listed on 25.03.2019 and as such, the Application No.51/2016 was also tagged with those other cases.
34. This Court has also gone through the ordersheet dated 07.06.2019 wherein the Assistant Commissioner has recorded that (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (16 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] all the files were tagged together and all the parties had expressed their willingness to decide on the issue of amended constitution.
35. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 only changes in the Trust register can be made and the Assistant Commissioner proceeded beyond his power and he appointed the respondent No.2 as sole trustee, suffice it to say by this Court that the petitioner himself had made an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 wherein he himself had prayed that he was disciple/successor of late Gopal Dasji Mahant and his prayer was to make necessary changes in the Trust as managing trustee. The petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time as on the one hand he doubts the powers of the Assistant Commissioner to entertain and allow the application filed by the respondent No.2 and on the other hand he himself seeks the same declaration by filing an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959.
36. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below failed to consider the provisions of Section 23, 38 and 40 of the Act of 1959 with regard to appointment of trustee on the death of existing trustee, this Court finds that the Civil Suit which was pending before the parties i.e. late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami and other persons, had already opined that issue of successor or working trustee was within the sole domain of the Assistant Commissioner, as per the provisions contained in the Act (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (17 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] of 1959 and only in respect of injunction and other property/civil dispute, the Civil Court was seized with different matters.
37. This Court is also required to consider the scope of different provisions of the Act of 1959 relating to registration of public trust, etc. This Court finds that Section 17 of the Act of 1959 provides for registration of public trusts and Section 18 of the Act of 1959 provides for inquiry for registration to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner. Section 19 of the Act of 1959 provides for giving findings with reasons by the Assistant Commissioner on conclusion of the inquiry conducted under Section 18 of the Act of 1959. Section 20 of the Act of 1959 provides for right of appeal against the findings of the Assistant Commissioner recorded under Section 19 of the Act of 1959 and the aggrieved person can file appeal before the Commissioner.
38. This Court finds that Section 21 of the Act of 1959 provides for entries in the register to be made by the Assistant Commissioner. Section 22 of the Act of 1959 gives a right to challenge any entry in the register by way of filing Civil Suit.
39. Section 23 of the Act of 1959, being relevant for the present controversy, is reproduced hereunder:-
"23. Changes.- (1) Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register, the working trustees 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 trustees 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. (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM)
(18 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] (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 therefor 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 the 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."
40. This Court finds that if there are any changes which occur in any of the entries recorded in the register, the working trustee can report the same in the prescribed form and also inform change or proposed change to the Assistant Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 gives power to the Assistant Commissioner to hold an inquiry for ascertaining any change which has occurred in respect of particulars already recorded in the register. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 provides that after holding inquiry either on receipt of a report under sub-section (1) or otherwise, if 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 public trust, he will record a finding with the reasons thereof.
41. This Court finds that in the present facts of the case, the first move was made by late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami by moving an application for change in the constitution and he also inserted a specific provision of nomination of a working trustee after his death. This Court finds that late Mahant Hanuman Das Swami though expired prior to any final decision on his application, (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (19 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] however, his statement which was recorded prior to his death had clearly spelt-out the method of nomination of the working trustee.
42. This Court finds that the Assistant Commissioner was required to consider as whether nomination, as per constitution, had taken place or not. The Assistant Commissioner was also having two separate applications by the aggrieved persons i.e. by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and after considering the rival claims of the parties and in compliance of the amended constitution, if findings have been recorded, it would not be possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
43. The power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to see that the authorities have exercised their jurisdiction in proper manner or not. The appreciation of evidence or facts will not be a proper exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 has reiterated that High Court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence to substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the Courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial Tribunals unless the grave and exceptional situations requires interference by the High Court. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) (20 of 20) [CW-14442/2019] vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It can not be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice."
44. This Court does not find any error being committed by both the Courts below while passing the impugned orders and the petitioner has not been able to raise any ground which entitles him to get the relief by setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, Devasthan Department dated 07.06.2019 and 15.07.2019 respectively.
45. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J.
Solanki DS, PS (Downloaded on 02/05/2022 at 09:28:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)