Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And ... on 24 July, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1 WP-20140-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 20140 of 2024
SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) AND REGISTRAR AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Baheti, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anendra Singh Parihar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2024 [Annexure P/12] passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Registrar, Public Trust, District Barwani whereby he has approved change in Constitution of the trust board in exercise of power under Section 9 (1) (2) of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951.
2. Admittedly against the impugned order, the petitioner has the remedy of preferring a civil suit before the Civil Court as per sub section(3) of Section 9 which provides that the provisions of Section 8 i.e. for preferring civil suit against finding of the Registrar shall apply to any finding under the Section. For ready reference Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 1951are reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 26-7-24 14:36:592 WP-20140-2024 "8. Civil suit against the finding of the Registrar.
(1)Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under Section 6 may, within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified.
(2)In every such suit, the Civil Court shall give notice to the State Government through the Registrar, and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit.
(3)On the final decision of the suit, the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with such decision.
9. Change.
(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 the such public trust, report in the prescribed manner such change or proposed change to the Registrar.
(2)If, on receipt of such report and after making such enquiry' as the Registrar may consider necessary, the Registrar is satisfied that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entries recorded in the register in regard to a particular public trust, he shall record a finding with the reason therefor and subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) amend the entries in the said register in accordance with such finding.
(3)The provisions of Section 8 shall apply to any finding under this section as they apply to a finding under Section 6."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the provisions of Section 9 have not been followed by the Registrar, the petitioner is not enjoined to prefer the civil suit and can straight away prefer this writ petition. It is submitted that order could have been passed under Section 9 only upon an application being made by the working trustee which has not been done. The Registrar was required to make enquiry which also has not been done. He was required to record a finding that he is satisfied that change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entry recorded in the register. Finding was required to be recorded by him with reasons therefore however no such reason has been given.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 26-7-24 14:36:593 WP-20140-2024
4. In the impugned order the Registrar has specifically recorded that upon perusal of the written argument/reply of the parties and of the objector i.e.the petitioner he has reached to a conclusion ''िनष ्कष'' to the effect that the amendment which has been sought for in the board of the trust is in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(1)(2) of the Act, 1951. Thus categoric satisfaction has been recorded by him that change as contemplated under Section 9 has occurred. The same is definitely a finding recorded by the Registrar and as per sub Section (3) of Section 9 against such a finding, in view of Section 8, a civil suit can certainly be preferred before the Civil Court for challenging the same. All the grounds as have been raised by the petitioner in this petition as regards procedure which is required to be followed under Section 9 and which has allegedly not been followed can very well be taken by him before the Civil Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another (1976) 2 SCC 981 to contend that a quasi- judicial authority must record reasons in support of the order it makes which has not been done in the present matter. In my opinion, the said contention can also be very well raised in the civil suit. Reliance has further been placed on the decision in Harbanslal Sahnia and Another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Other (2003) 2 SCC 107 to contend that alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case it is not just a question of availability of alternate remedy but a specific remedy of a civil suit before a Civil Court which has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 26-7-24 14:36:59 4 WP-20140-2024 provided for under the Act itself which is required to be resorted to. It has not been show that the order is wholly without jurisdiction since the Registrar very much has the right to pass such an order. It is not a case of enforcement of any fundamental right of the petitioner. It cannot be said that there has been any failure of following principles of natural justice since the petitioner has been heard in compliance of order dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P. No.10248 of 2024 preferred by him. There was a direction for consideration of the objection of the petitioner and in the impugned order it has been stated that the said objection has been taken into consideration.
6. Thus in view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has the remedy of preferring a civil suit before the Civil Court in terms of Section 8/9 of the Act, 1951, I do not deem it to be a fit case for entertaining this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, admission is declined. The petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under the law.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 26-7-24 14:36:59