Mandir Thikana Galta Ji Trust Through ... vs Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti on 22 July, 2024

[Cites 56, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Mandir Thikana Galta Ji Trust Through ... vs Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti on 22 July, 2024

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:26918]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16347/2016

Avdheshacharya son of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, aged
about 66 years, resident of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan,
Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Devesthan Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Devasthan Vibhag, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

2. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, A Society Registered
Under The Rajasthan Society Registration Act, Through
President Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal Son Of Shri Ram
Niwas Agarwal, Aged Around 60 Years, Resident Of Plot
No. A- 274, Muktanand Nagar, Jaipur.

3. State of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur acting through the
Chief Secretary.
4. Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Vibhag,
Temple Shri Ramchandra Ji Ground Floor, Sirh Dyodi
Bazaar, Jaipur
5. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
6. Suresh Mishra Son Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra
Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
7. Dr. Ramesh Mishra Son Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra
Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
8. Devendra Mishra Son Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra
Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur (Since
Deceased)
8/1 Priyanka Mishra Wife Of (Late) Shri. Devendra Mishra,
Resident Of Mandir Shri Roop Chaturbhuj Ji, Gangori
Bazar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
8/2 Master Sarvagya Mishra Son Of (Late) Shri. Devendra
Mishra, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Priyanka
Mishra Wife Of (Late) Shri. Devendra Mishra, Residents Of
Mandir Shri Roop Chaturbhuj Ji, Gangori Bazar, Choti
Chaupar, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16243/2016
1. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (2 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
2. Suresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, R/o House
No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti Chopar,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Ramesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, Resident
Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti
Chopar, Jaipur.
4. Devendra Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya,
(Deceased)
4/1 Priyanka Mishra W/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra, Resident
Of Mandir Shri Roopchaturbhuj Ji, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur.

----Petitioners
Versus
1. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, A Society Registered
Under The Rajasthan Society Registration Act, Through
President Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal Son Of Shri Ram
Niwas Agarwal, Aged Around 60 Years, Resident Of Plot
No. A- 274, Muktanand Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Shri Ram Sharan Das Chela Mahant Ram Manohar Das,
Mahant, Ramanand, Virakt Saint, Seva Ashram, Sapt
Rishi, Bhupatwala, Haridwar, Presently Residing At
Banshiwalon Ki Bagichi, Bagru Walon Ka Rasta, Purani
Basti, Jaipur (Deceased)
----Complainants-Respondents
3. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Assistant Commissioner No. 1, Devasthan
Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chandra Ji, Ground Floor,
Sirodyodi Bazar, Jaipur.
-----Respondent
5. Shri Avadheshacharya S/o Late Shri Ramodarchrya,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri
Bazar, Choti Chopar, Jaipur.
---Proforma-Respondent
6. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16327/2016
1. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
2. Suresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, R/o House

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (3 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti Chopar,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Ramesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, Resident
Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti
Chopar, Jaipur.
4. Devendra Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya,
(Deceased)
4/1 Priyanka Mishra W/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra, Resident
Of Mandir Shri Roopchaturbhuj Ji, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur.

4/2 Master Sarvagya Mishra S/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra,
(Minor) Through Legal Guardian, Mother, Priyanka Mishra
W/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra, Resident Of Mandir Shri
Roopchaturbhuj Ji, Gangauri, Bazar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, A Society Registered
Under The Rajasthan Society Registration Act, Through
President Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal Son Of Shri Ram
Niwas Agarwal, Aged Around 60 Years, Resident Of Plot
No. A- 274, Muktanand Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Shri Ram Sharan Das Chela Mahant Ram Manohar Das,
Mahant, Ramanand, Virakt Saint, Seva Ashram, Sapt
Rishi, Bhupatwala, Haridwar, Presently Residing At
Banshiwalon Ki Bagichi, Bagru Walon Ka Rasta, Purani
Basti, Jaipur (Deceased)
---Complainants-Respondents
3. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Assistant Commissioner No. 1, Devasthan
Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chandra Ji, Ground Floor,
Sirodyodi Bazar, Jaipur.
-----Respondent
5. Shri Avadheshacharya S/o Late Shri Ramodarchrya,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri
Bazar, Choti Chopar, Jaipur.
---Proforma-Respondent
6. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16371/2016
1. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife Of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
2. Suresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, R/o House
No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti Chopar,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Ramesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, Resident
Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri Bazar, Choti

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (4 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Chopar, Jaipur.
4. Devendra Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya,
(Deceased)
4/1 Priyanka Mishra W/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra, Resident
Of Mandir Shri Roopchaturbhuj Ji, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur.

2. Shri Ram Sharan Das Chela Mahant Ram Manohar Das,
Mahant, Ramanand, Virakt Saint, Seva Ashram, Sapt
Rishi, Bhupatwala, Haridwar, Presently Residing At
Banshiwalon Ki Bagichi, Bagru Walon Ka Rasta, Purani
Basti, Jaipur (Deceased)
----Complainants-Respondents
3. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Assistant Commissioner No. 1, Devasthan
Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chandra Ji, Ground Floor,
Sirodyodi Bazar, Jaipur.
-----Respondent
5. Shri Avadheshacharya S/o Late Shri Ramodarchrya,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangauri
Bazar, Choti Chopar, Jaipur.
---Proforma-Respondent
6. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16461/2016
Mandir Thikana Galta ji Trust Through Managing Trustees
1. Suresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, R/o Roop
Chaturbhuj Ji ka Mandir, Choti Choper, Gangauri Bazar,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Ramesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya, Resident
Of Roop Chaturbhuj Ji Ka Mandir, Choti Chopar, Gangauri
Bazar, Jaipur
3. Sarvagya Mishra Son Of Late Shri Devendra Mishra,
Resident Of Roop Chatubhuj Ji Ka Mandir, Choti Chopar,
Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur (Minor Through Guardian Mother
Priyanka Mishra)

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (5 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

----Petitioners/appellants
Versus
1. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, Through President Shri
Gauri Shankar Agarwal, Resident Of Bhoot Bangla Suraj
Pool Gate, Left Side House, Galta Gate, Jaipur.
2. Swami Sampat Kumar Avadeshacharya Son Of
Ramodacharya, Resident Of Thikana Galtaji, Jaipur
3. Ramdas Chella Naraindas, Resident Of Prachit Sh. Ram
Mandir Durga Singh Bhabhut Wale Haridwar, at present
Resident Of Bansiwale Ki Bagichi, Bagrowale Ka Rasta,
Jaipur
-----Respondents/complainants
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2016
Mandir Thikana Galta ji Trust Through Managing Trustees
1. Suresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya,
Roopchaturbhuj Ji Ka Mandir, Choti Chopar, Gangauri
Bazar, Jaipur
2. Dr. Ramesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramodacharya,
Roopchaturbhuj Ji Ka Mandir, Choti Chopar, Gangauri
Bazar, Jaipur
3. Sarvagya Mishra S/o Late Shri Devendra Mishra Minor
Through His Mother Smt. Priyanka Mishra W/o Shr,
Roopchaturbhuj Ji Ka Mandir, Choti Chopar, Gangauri
Bazar, Jaipur
----Petitioners-Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Ram Das Chela Narayan Das Presently Residing At
Banshi Wale Bageche Bagru Walo Ka Rasta, Jaip, Shri
Ram Mandir Durga Singh Bhupat Wale Haridwar
2. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti, Through President Shri
Gauri Shankar Agarwal, R/0 Bhoot Bangla Suraj Pool
Gate, Left Side House, Galta Gate, Jaipur
3. Shri Ram Sharan Das, Chela Mahant Ramanand Das,
Virakt Saint, Seva Ashram, Sapt Rishi, Bhupatawala,
Haridwar, Presently Residing At Banshiwalon Ki Bagichi,
Bagru Walon ka Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur (Deceased)
4. Swami Sampat Kumar Avadeshacharya S/o
Ramodacharya, Thikana Galtaji, Jaipur
---Complainants-Respondents
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (6 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8991/2017
Avdheshacharya Son Of Late Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Resident
Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar,
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Devasthan Commissioner, Office Of The Commissioner,
Devasthan Vibhag, Rajasthan, Udaipur
2. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, A Society Registered
Under The Rajasthan Society Registration Act, Resident Of
Plot No. A-274, Muktanand Nagar, Jaipur
3. Ramsharan Das Chela Mahant Ram Manohar Das, Mahant
Ramanand Virakt Sant Seva Ashram, Sapt Rishi Bhu,
Haridwar Uttrakhand, Presently Residing At Banshiwalon
Ki Baghchi, Bagru Walon Ka Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur
---Respondents
4. Assistant Commissioner First, Devasthan Vibhag, Temple
Shri Ramchandra Ji Ground Floor, Sirh Dyodi Bazaar,
Jaipur.
5. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife Of Late Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur.
6. Suresh Mishra Son Of Late Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
7. Dr. Ramesh Mishra Son Of Late Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
8. Devendra Mishra Son Of Late Shri Ramodaracharya Ji,
Resident Of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori
Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur Since Deceased
9/1. Priyanka Mishra Wife Of Late Shri Devendra Mishra
9/2. Master Sarvagya Mishra Son Of Late Shri Devendra Mishra
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Priy, Residents Of
Mandir Shri Roop Chaturbhuj Ji, Gangori Bazar, Choti
Chaupar, Jaipur
---Proforma Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Bhandari, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava,
Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Rohan Agarwal &
Mr. Yash Vardhan Tolani
Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with
Mr. Yellop Singh

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (7 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Singhvi, Former AG with
Mr. Daksh Pareek
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Hanumant Singh
Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Aditya Mathur
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Avinash Choudhary,
Mr. Hardik Singh &
Ms. Yuvika Choudhary
Mr. Jai Dayal Sharma with
Mr. Shyam Kant Sharma
Mr. Akash Ranjan, Assistant
Commissioner, Devasthan

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

Reportable
Reserved on: 22/02/2024
Pronounced on: 22/07/2024

Sr. No. Contents Page
Nos.
Part A Prefatory Remarks 8
Part B Introduction: Origin, Significance 8-24
and Historical Background of the
Galta Peeth Dispute
Part C Orders Impugned Dt. 28.03.2013 24-25
and 10.11.2016
Part D Submissions of the Petitioners 26-32
Part E Submissions of the Respondents 32-40
Part F Issues/Points of Determination 40-41
Part G Discussions and Findings 41-96
Part H Ancillary Remarks 96-100
Part I Conclusion 100
Part J Directions 101-104

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (8 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Part A

Prefatory Remarks

1. Since time immemorial, the history and culture of this

country have been home to the quests for truth, whether it be

through the material, the political or the spiritual. By virtue of the

present set of petitions, this Court is called upon to exercise its

adjudicatory authority, with regards to the issues emanating from

the administration of Thikana Galta Ji and the ownership of its

properties, which vide orders impugned dated 28.03.2013 and

10.11.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan

and Commissioner, Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority)

respectively, are stated to have been altered, purportedly sans the

authority of law.

2. Therefore, since the scope of the controversy involved in the

present batch of writ petitions is identical and overarching; with

due consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the

sides, the petitions are jointly taken up for final disposal, by way

of a common order.

Part B
Introduction: Origin, Significance and Historical
Background of the Galtapeeth Dispute

3. Situated within the welcoming Aravalli hills, which traverse

through the landscape of Jaipur, the site of Galta Ji, also known as

Galtapeeth/ Galta Gaddi/ Galta Thikana, consists of a series of

temples, a Gurukul/Ashram, seat of the Mahant and a picturesque

natural spring emerging high on the hill, which flows downwards

and fills a kund (water tank) where devotees of Galta Ji bathe.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (9 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

4. Galta Ji has its origin from 'Galav' rishi, a saint who lived at

the site practicing meditation and doing penance i.e. tapasya.

With the passage of time and on account of the astute worship

and belief of its devotees, Galtapeeth emerged as a 'tirth' i.e.

pilgrimage for the Hindu faith, with the underlining belief that the

water at the site was holy. As a result, Galtapeeth garnered

notable religious, spiritual and emotional significance for the

followers of the Hindu faith.

5. As per the record before this Court, which includes the

findings of the fact-finding authority i.e. Devasthan Department,

Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari Maharaj established the Galta Gaddi in

Samvat Year 1560 i.e. 1530 AD and became the first Mahant of

the Galta Gaddi. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that a

Mahant is the spiritual head of the temple/institution, who is

responsible for the management of the estate in a proper manner,

including the vital engagement of ensuring that the income

emanating from and/or generated through the said

temple/institution, is utilized only for the purpose of worship of

the deity/idol or maintenance and upkeep of the

temple/institution.

6. Pursuant to the demise of the founder Mahant i.e. Shri

Krishnadas Ji Payohari, Shri Keel Das Ji was appointed by the

erstwhile State of Jaipur as the successive Mahant of the Galta

Gaddi. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur continued to

appoint Mahants pursuant to the demise of their predecessors. In

continuation, Shri Harisharnacharya was appointed as Mahant of

the Galta Gaddi in the Year 1920. However, on account of

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (10 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

mismanagement of the properties of the Galta Gaddi, Shri

Harisharnacharya was removed from the post of Mahant in the

Year 1924. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur, vide

order/notification dated 22.10.1924, took all the assets and

management of the Thikana Galta Ji under the control of the Court

of Wards. The aforesaid control subsisted until 09.01.1949.

7. Shri Harisharnacharya, after his removal from the post of

Mahant, vide letter dated 31.03.1935 (Annexure-R-2/3 in S.B.

CWP No. 16511/2016) requested the then Revenue Minister to re-

appoint or continue his service as the Mahant of Galta Gaddi.

However, the said request was turned down. Subsequently, in the

Year 1937, Shri Harisharnacharya died.

8. Prior to his demise, Shri Harisharnacharya made certain

recommendations for the successive appointment on the post of

Mahant. As per him, Shri Radhey Shyam (S/O Rama Bai) i.e. his

grandson through his daughter, was the first preference for

appointment on the post of Mahant. However, the erstwhile State

of Jaipur, vide Resolution No. 9 dated 03.10.1939, rejected the

said recommendation and observed that all the rights qua the

appointment of any person as Mahant of Galta Gaddi, shall be

dependent upon the will of the His Highness or 'His Highness

Marzi'. Vide said resolution, it was made clear that selection and

appointment on the post of Mahant shall be made solely on the

basis of merit, with a proper selection process and not by

hereditary succession. The relevant extract of Resolution No. 9

dated 03.10.1939 is reproduced herein-under:-

"Resolved -

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (11 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

(1) that the grant being in Bhog is an
endowment for religious trust and should be
maintained.

(2) that the male heir, the appointment of
a new trustee rests exclusively with His
Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur,

(3) that the Home Minister should pat up,
for selection of the trustee, the names of
candidates reputed for their learning and
character and belonging to Ramanuj sect
of Vaisnavites, and

(4) that the Judicial and Home Ministers
should submit a scheme for the future
administration of the trust, and
succession to the trustee, not
inconsistent with the original object of
the trust."

9. Thereafter, in pursuance of Resolution No. 9 dated

03.10.1939 (Annexure R-2/4 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016)), an

advertisement dated 10.10.1942 (Annexure-12 in S.B. CWP No.

16327/2016) was published for selection and appointment of

Mahant for the Galta Gaddi. The said advertisement categorically

prescribed the paramount conditions for the selection and

appointment on the post of Mahant. A few of the conditions

incorporated in the advertisement included the possession of

thorough knowledge of the principles of the sampradaya to which

the temple belongs, having a good moral character and the

absence of any antecedents, amongst others.

10. After due consideration of all the pre-requisite conditions,

vide order dated 09.06.1943 (Annexure 2 in S.B. CWP No.

16327/2016), Mahant of Lohargal i.e. Shri Ramodaracharya was

appointed as the 16th Mahant of the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta Ji.

The said appointment order, registered as Order No. 744, was

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (12 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

undersigned by the Chief Secretary of the erstwhile State of

Jaipur. The aspect of Shri Ramodaracharya's appointment as

Mahant purely on merit gains strength from the fact that even the

Rajasthan High Court, in its subsequent order dated 11.11.1954

had categorically observed and recorded a finding to the effect of

admission on part of Shri Ramodaracharya, that he was not the

legal heir of the erstwhile Mahant.

11. The said appointment on the post of Mahant was made only

for a limited role/work i.e. to perform seva pooja in the temples of

the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta Ji. Moreover, even to acquire such a

right to perform seva pooja, Shri Ramodaracharya wrote repeated

letters and/or applications before the erstwhile State of Jaipur

dated 08.07.1943, 30.08.1943 and 21.08.1943 (Annexures R-2/5,

R-2/6 and R-2/7 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016).

12. A bare perusal of the said letters/applications categorically

paints the picture of the limited powers possessed by the Mahant.

Correspondingly, it becomes evident that the Mahants had limited

rights and duties to perform.

13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that vide order

impugned, the Commissioner, Devasthan Department held that

the ownership qua the 35 shops, 1 nohra and 2 thaddies in the

Gangouri Bazaar area, which partially constitutes the subject

matter of the dispute before this Court, could not have been

assumed to be with the Mahant in his personal capacity of

ownership, by way of transfer from the erstwhile Mahant or

otherwise. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the dispute

qua the said properties had previously even travelled to the High

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (13 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Court of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, which vide order dated

01.05.1943 categorically held that the said properties belonged to

the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta and not the Mahant thereof, in his

personal capacity of ownership. It was only in this background and

with the above drawn limited duties and rights, that Shri

Ramodaracharya was appointed as the Mahant on 09.06.1943.

14. With the passage of time and subsequent to the birthing of

an independent India, the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959

(hereinafter, Act of 1959) came to be enforced in the State. The

Act of 1959 mandated the registration of all 'Public Trusts' and

intending to do the same, Shri Ramodaracharya filed the

documents for registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust

along with the list of its properties under Section 17 of the Act of

1959.

15. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that while filing the

documents for registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust, in

the list of the properties thereof, which was enclosed with the said

application under Section 17, Shri Ramodaracharya failed to

include the disputed properties i.e. 35 shops, 2 thaddies and 1

nohra, continuing to claim them to be his personal properties,

despite the dispute having been put to rest previously vide order

dated 01.05.1943. Thereafter, upon receiving said application, the

Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under the

provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1959, registered the Trust

vide its order dated 26.04.1963 (Annexure-6 in S.B. CWP No.

16461/2016). Resultantly, a certificate was issued after the

registration of the Temple/Public Trust and the list of properties so

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (14 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

enclosed with the application for registration, were registered as

the 'properties belonging to the Trust', which were amiss of the

said 35 shops, 2 thaddies and 1 nohra.

16. However, subsequently, in the Year 1981, the Commissioner,

Devasthan Department, vide order dated 27.01.1981 cancelled

the registration of the Public Trust of Thikana Galta Ji. Moreover,

vide gazette notifications dated 27.04.1981 and 25.06.1981, the

properties prior registered as 'properties belonging to the Trust'

were included in the 'Rashtriya Supurdegi Shreni'. The said

notification had the effect of bringing the said properties under the

control of the State Government. By way of the said notifications,

it was expressly made clear that the consent of the State shall be

a pre-requisite condition for any transfer, alienation, alteration in

management or any other administrative operation qua the said

properties.

17. However, the said notification dated 27.04.1981 by which the

properties belonging to the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta Ji were

included in the 'Rashtriya Supurdegi Shreni' was challenged before

this Court, by way of S.B. CWP No. 337/1981 wherein this Court

vide order dated 19.02.1996, restored the properties and

registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust and set aside the

cancellation order dated 27.01.1981. Additionally, by way of the

order dated 19.02.1996, the question of ownership of the said

properties was left open, for adjudication by the concerned

competent authority i.e. Civil Courts.

18. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 19.02.1996

which set aside the order dated 27.01.1981 cancelling the

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (15 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

registration of the Galta Gaddi as a Public Trust, Shri

Ramodaracharya altered the bylaws and the rules and regulations

governing the administrative control of the Thikana Galta Ji Public

Trust in the Year 1999. Thereafter, by way of amendment in the

said bylaws of the already registered Public Trust, Shri

Ramodaracharya appointed himself as the Chairman of the Board

of Trustees, Thikana Galta Ji. Afterwards, he inculcated his son

and other members of the family as members of the Trust and

thereafter, nominated them as trustees. In cumulative effect, in

the Year 1999, Shri Ramodaracharya altered the mode of

succession to the post of Mahant, from merits to hereditary, which

confined further succession within the members of his family, who

were nominated as trustees.

19. Resultant to the order dated 27.01.1981 qua registration of

Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust, the competent authorities of the

Devasthan Department, on different dates namely 02.12.1992,

17.02.2004 and 31.07.2006 conducted extensive inquiry, as per

the mandate of the Act of 1959 and concluded that Mahants were

appointed by a selection process by the erstwhile State of Jaipur,

on merits. Thereafter, numerous petitions and complaints were

filed by different persons under varying titles. For instance, some

complaints were filed before the learned Assistant Commissioner,

Devasthan Department bearing nos. 01/2004, 01/2006 and

47/2007. The primary grounds of the said complaints were that

after the demise of the erstwhile Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya,

the petitioner before this Court, Shri Awdeshacharya i.e. son of

the erstwhile Mahant, had arbitrarily and by

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (16 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

fraud/misrepresentation, appointed himself as the succeeding

Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji, in the absence of any selection

process on merits per se, despite the conclusive findings and

custom of Mahant's being appointed by the State, by way of a

selection process, as opposed to hereditary succession.

20. Moreover, several concerns were also raised against the

actions of the Mahant, by which it was alleged that the Mahant

with malafide intentions, whilst submitting the application for

registration under Section 17 of the Act of 1959 before the

Assistant Commissioner, had alienated the properties belonging to

the Thikana Galta Ji Trust i.e. 35 shops, 2 thaddies and 1 nohra, in

his own favour, claiming them to be his personal properties.

Additionally, certain charges of malpractices, administrative

mismanagement etc. were also leveled against Shri

Awdeshacharya. Simultaneously, it was also alleged that Shri

Awdeshacharya, through illicit means, got the amended bylaws of

the Year 1999 registered and subsequently, established a Pvt. Ltd.

Company, namely Gayatri Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Mrs. Gayatri

being the wedded spouse of Shri Awdeshacharya s/o Shri

Ramodaracharya), with only his family members as its

shareholders. The Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Articles

of Association (AoA) of the said company categorically stated that

the company shall run the business of running guest houses, bars,

pubs, casinos and restaurants within the premises of the

properties belonging to the Thikana Galta Ji, and shall serve all

kinds of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. Such acts, by way

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (17 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

of the said complaints, were voiced to be impermissible to be

consumed in the holy place of worship.

21. As soon as the devotees and followers of Galta Ji were made

aware of the said doings, which were stated to have caused grave

distress to their emotional and religious sentiments, various PILs

came to be filed before this Court. The said PILs were clubbed

together for hearing along with two distinct writ petitions pending

before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as they all pertained to

an akin and indistinguishable cause of action, claiming identical

reliefs. The PILs and writ petitions were disposed of vide order

dated 04.05.2010, which directed the concerned competent

authority to adjudicate the matter, involving questions of facts, as

per the provisions enshrined under the Act of 1959, especially

those questions pertaining to the nature of appointment of

Mahants and their rights and duties/work allotted. By way of the

said order, it was also directed that the properties belonging to the

Thikana Galta Ji not be alienated with and/or further

transferred/status quo be maintained.

22. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.05.2010 passed in

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5111/2004 titled as Mahant Ram

Saran Das and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. along

with connected PIL, as well as in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

6607/2004 titled as Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya and Anr.

vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. is reproduced herein-under:-

"In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5111/2004:-

We have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (18 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

The issues raised in two Public Interest Litigations
have been narrated while dealing with the arguments
of learned counsel for the petitioners. The first
issue is regarding the nature of appointment of
Mahant in the year 1943. As to whether the
post of Mahant will go in succession to the legal
heirs in view of the fact that late Mahant
Ramodaracharya is no more. The other issue is
that as to whether the property of
Galtapeeth/Thikana is public property or
property belonging to individual.

According to us, both the issues are pending
consideration before the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department as it has been admitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 (Shri
Avdesh Kumar), who is present holding the post of
Mahant. In view of the aforesaid, Public Interest
Litigations can be disposed of as one and the same
issue cannot be decided in Public Interest Litigation,
when statutory enquiry under Section 24 of the Act
of 1959 is pending for consideration before the
Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department. In
view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion
that the issues raised before us would be
decided by the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department after hearing all the
parties and in this regard, the petitioners in the
writ petition No. 2321/2006 would be at liberty
to participate in the hearing by making a proper
application and would further be at liberty to
substantiate their grounds by submitting
necessary documents.

We expect from the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department that he will look into the
matter entirely and thereupon record his finding by a
speaking order while deciding both the issues. It goes
without saying that whatever is the outcome of the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department, the consequences will follow.

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ
petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation are
disposed of."

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (19 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6607/2004:-

"In view of submissions made above, the present
petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly, same
is dismissed as having become infructuous with
liberty to the petitioners to take legal recourse,
regarding the issuance of notification under Chapter
10, if necessity so arises.

It is agreed by all the parties that till the matter
is decided by the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department, they will maintain
status quo in respect of the office of Mahant as
well as regarding property of
Galtapeeth/Thikana."

23. Being aggrieved of the order dated 04.05.2010, as noted

above, the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti knocked the doors of

the Hon'ble Apex Court through a SLP, which vide order dated

17.04.2014, came to be disposed of with a direction for

consideration of the matter by the competent authority. The

relevant extract of the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 530 is

reproduced herein-under:-

"38. Now in the light of the above provisions of the
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, we would like to deal with
the submission of the counsel on either side and the
legality or otherwise of the order passed by the High
Court.

39. It appears from the material placed before us that
there is a long standing dispute with regard to the
properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana which was
established in the 15th century by one mahant Shri
Krishnadas Payohari. Later on 06.07.1943,
Ramodaracharya, the father of respondent No.4
herein was appointed as mahanth by the ruler. The
Rajasthan Public Trusts Act 1959 has come into force
w.e.f. 01.07.1962. The case of the appellant is that

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (20 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

on 25.10.1962, the mahant submitted a list of
properties to the Jagir Commissioner showing some of
the properties of the Trust as his personal properties.
Then the mahanth has executed gift deeds in favour
of his wife and sons. On 31.12.1962, mahant
Ramodaracharya made an application for registration
of the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji as a Public Trust
under the Act. In the application, as regards the
mode of succession of the Office of the Trustee, he
stated that it would be "by custom and usages". On
26.04.1963, the Assistant Commissioner passed order
registering the Trust. Later on, a series of litigation
went on between the parties with regard to the
properties of the Trust/Math. When the Government
appointed a five-Member Committee for proper
management of the Trust, challenging the same D.B.
(Civil) W.P. No.6607 of 2004 was filed. When the
Assistant Commissioner re-opened the issue of
succession, 4th respondent herein filed D.B. (Civil)
W.P. No.5650 of 2007. Two Public Interest Litigations
i.e. D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 5111 of 2004 and D.B. (Civil)
W.P. No. 2321 of 2006 were filed seeking to declare
(a) the properties are trust properties, (b) the mode
of succession, (c) direct the Government to take over
the management of the trust and (d) to appoint a
Board to manage the properties in line with Vaishno
Devi Shrine or Tirupati Balaji Temple.

40. The above narrated facts disclose that either
in the Public Interest Litigation or in the private
civil litigation, the entire issues revolve around
the properties of Galta Peeth and the mode of
succession to the Peeth. Already in respect of
these issues, by the time, these writ petitions
were filed, statutory enquiry application Nos.
1/2004, 1/2006 and 1/2007, under Section 24
of the Act, were pending before the Assistant
Commissioner. Hence, the High Court felt that
those issues can be effectively decided by the
Assistant Commissioner, and accordingly,
permitted the appellant to implead himself in
the pending applications before the authority.
In view of the statutory provisions, as narrated
and discussed by us supra, which give extensive
powers to the Assistant Commissioner and
Commissioner, in some cases the power of the

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:28 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (21 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

civil Court to effectively decide the issues of the
Public Trust, by providing effective mechanism,
we are unable to agree with the contentions
advanced by the learned counsel that the
Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the disputes involved, because the
Act clearly demonstrates the power and
jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in
deciding the issues pertaining to public trust
and particularly the issues raised before us.

41. Apart from that, the appellant herein has
impleaded himself in the applications pending before
the Assistant Commissioner which were disposed of
by him vide orders dated 28.03.2013, and against
those orders of the Assistant Commissioner, it
appears that the parties have preferred appeals as
provided under the Act. The appellant having availed
the alternative remedy available under the Act,
however, approached this Court by way of these Civil
Appeals. In our opinion, the appellant cannot be
permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously,
and such conduct of the appellant is abuse of
process of Court. It is no doubt settled law that
mere availability of alternative remedy cannot
be a ground to reject the relief in a Public
Interest Litigation, but in the facts and
circumstances of the case, namely the history of
the case, right from 15th century, the long
standing litigation, the voluminous record, etc.
involving disputed questions of facts and law,
we are of the considered opinion that
adjudication of such disputes is not possible in a
Public Interest Litigation, and the remedy is to
get such disputes adjudicated by a fact finding
authority as enumerated under the Act, which
remedy is not only alternative, but also
effective, because the parties can put a quietus
to the litigation once for all. Hence, in view of
our above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court, by the impugned
order, was justified in relegating the parties to
the Assistant Commissioner, before whom the
applications are pending adjudication. The
appellant having got impleaded himself in the
applications before the Assistant Commissioner
and having invited an order from the High Court,

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (22 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

now cannot be permitted to question the said
order of the High Court. Accordingly, the first and
second issues are answered.

42. The third issue that requires our consideration is
whether the appellant herein is aggrieved by the
orders passed in D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 6607 of 2004,
which was dismissed as infructuous. The case of the
appellant is that the High Court should not have
dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn basing on
the submission that the term of the Committee has
expired. It ought to have decided the issue on merits.
By this order, the High Court has created a vacuum
not contemplated by the Act, which is against Public
Interest, in view of the status quo orders passed by
the Court, the Committee could not function its full
period. Hence, the Committee has to be allowed to
function till a permanent Committee is appointed by
the Government.

45. In this case, a Committee was constituted
pursuant to notification dated 18.09.2004, and
the term of the Committee expired on
17.09.2009, and even though four years have
passed from the date of expiry of the term of
the Committee, the Government has not chosen
to appoint a fresh Committee. The appointment
of the Committee invoking Section 53, depends
upon the satisfaction and necessity felt by the
Government. It is brought to our notice that the
notification was issued by the Government
invoking unamended Section 53 of the Act. The
said Section has now been amended on
12.10.2007, where the Government was given
discretion to appoint or not to appoint the
Committee. We have gone through the amended
Section 53 of the Act wherein the word 'may"
has been substituted in the place of 'shall'. The
Assistant Commissioner has already passed an
order and the same is subject matter of appeal
before the Commissioner. In view of the same,
we are not able to appreciate the contention of
the counsel that a permanent Committee has to
be appointed to look after the management of
the Galta Peeth, and such contention, deserves
no consideration by this Court, and is
accordingly rejected, and further hold that the

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (23 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

order passed by the High Court in D.B. (Civil)
W.P. No. 6607 of 2004 is perfectly valid.
Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.

46. Under the circumstances, we cannot give any
direction to the Government to invoke Section 53 for
appointment of a Committee of Management to the
trust.

49. The concept of Public Interest Litigation is a
phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the
reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance,
indigence, illiteracy and other down trodden people.
Through the Public Interest Litigation, the cause of
several people who are not able to approach the
Court is espoused. In the guise of Public Interest
Litigation, we are coming across several cases where
it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals.
The Courts have to be very cautious and careful while
entertaining Public Interest Litigation. The Judiciary
should deal with the misuse of Public Interest
Litigation with iron hand. If the Public Interest
Litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose
for which it is conceived, namely to come to the
rescue of the poor and down trodden will be defeated.
The Courts should discourage the unjustified litigants
at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses
the forum should be made accountable for it. In the
realm of Public Interest Litigation, the Courts while
protecting the larger public interest involved, should
at the same time have to look at the effective way in
which the relief can be granted to the people, whose
rights are adversely affected or at stake. When their
interest can be protected and the controversy or the
dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created
under a particular statute, the parties should be
relegated to the appropriate forum, instead of
entertaining the writ petition filed as Public Interest
Litigation.

50. In view of the above discussion and the law
laid down by this Court and particularly taking
into consideration that the appellant has already
availed statutory remedies and the appeals are
still pending before the Commissioner, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order."

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (24 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

24. Thereafter, in pursuance of the orders dated 04.05.2010 and

17.04.2014, passed by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Apex

Court respectively, the competent authority i.e. Devasthan

Department, initiated proceedings to adjudicate upon the noted

issues of mode of succession to the post of Mahant and the

ownership of the properties of Thikana Galta Ji (disputed

properties). As a result, orders impugned dated 28.03.2013 and

10.11.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan

and Commissioner, Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority)

respectively came to be pronounced, which have been put to

challenge before this Court, by way of the present batch of writ

petitions.

Part C: Orders Impugned Dt. 28.03.2013 and
10.11.2016

25. The relevant extracts of the orders impugned dated

28.03.2013 and 10.11.2016, passed by the learned Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department and the Commissioner,

Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority) are reproduced

herein-under:-

Order Impugned Dt. 28.03.2013:

"Xkyrk ihB dh ,sfrgkfld i`"B Hkwfe] jhfr&fjokt] izFkk ,oa LVsV dkSf'ky
izksflfMax fnukad 3-10-39 esa fn;s x;s funZs'kksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gqos ;g
fufoZokn gS fd xyrk ihB esa ,dy izU;klh@egUr ijEijk jgh gSA fnukad
3-10-39 dh izksflfMaXk esa Hkh izU;kl ds Hkkoh iz'kklu o VªLVh ds
mRrjkf/kdkjh dks ysdj U;k; o x`g ea=ky; ls Ulkl ds ewy m|s';ksa ds
vuq:i Ldhe cuk;s tkus dh vis{kk;s j[kh xbZ FkhA ,sls esa jktLFkku yksd
Ulk; vf/kfu;e 1959 ds izHkko esa vkus dsa i'pkr Lo0 egUr jkeksnjkpk;Z
us Ulkl ds csgrj izcU/ku gsrq ,d ls vf/kd izU;kfl;ksa dks cuk;s tkus
gsrq Ulkl fo/kku izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftls vkns'k fnukad 22-11-99 ls Lohdkj
fd;k x;kA mDr Lohd`r djk;s x;s fo/kku dks ftyk U;k;ky; ls funsZ'k

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (25 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

vko';d gSA pawfd /kkjk 24 dsoy vfxze tkap rd dh vf/kdkfjrk nsrh gS
fjO;w dh ughaA ,sls esa tkap esa izdV rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k dks
funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 23 esa izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ij dk;Zokgh ls
iwoZ os izU;kl fo/kku ij ftyk U;k;ky; ls funZs'k izkIr dj bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr djsA"

Order Impugned Dt. 10.11.2016

"geus fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh esa
miyC/k vfHkys[kksa dk v?;;u fd;kA
;g rF; fufoZokn gS fd t;iqj 'kgj ds iwohZ fn'kk esa vofLFkr igkfM;ksa
ds e/; xyrk rhFkZ ¼ihB½ vofLFkr gSA bl ihB dh Lfkkiuk Lokeh Jh
d`".k nkl th i;ksgjh egkjkt }kjk foØe laor 1550 esa fd;k tkuk
crk;k gSA dkykUrj esa jktkvksa@egkjktkvksa] tkxhjnkjksa o vke tu }kjk
dkQh lEifRr;ka xyrh rhFkZ dks HksaVLo:i nh x;hA o"kZ 1934&35 esa
xyrk ds rRdkyhu egUr Jh vkSadkjyky mQZ Jh gfj'kj.kkpk;Zth dk
LoxZokl gksus tkus ds i'pkr dksbZ ;ksX; f'k"; ugha gksus ds dkj.k fBdkus
ls lacaf/kr eafnjksa ,oa lEinkvksa dk izcU/k ,oa fu;a=.k fj;klr ds egdek
pSfjVh }kjk vius v/khu ys fy;k x;k rFkk egdek dh dksVZ vkWQ okMZ
'kk[kk }kjk izcU/k ,oa fu;a=.k u;s egUr dh fu;qfDr rd fd;k tkrk
jgkA mlds ckn jsosU;w fefuLVj t;iqj LvsV ds }kjk fBdkuk xyrk dh
xn~nh ij lq;ksX;] lnkpkjh] oS".ko fo}ku dh fu;qfDr gsrq fnukad 10-10-
42 dks ,d vke lwpuk tkjh dj Jh jkeksnjkpk;Z dks vkns'k Øekad
744&80 fnukad 9 twu] 1943 ls xyrk ihB dk egUr fu;qDr fd;k
x;kA xyrk ihB dh ,sfrgkfld i`"BHkwfe ,oa LvsV dkSaflay izksflfMax
fnukad 3-10-39 vuqlkj xyrk ihB esa ,dy egUr dh ijEijk jgh gSA
egUr jkeksnjkpk;Z us U;kl ds csgrj izcU/k gsrq ,d ls vf/kd izU;klh
cuk;s tkus gsrq v/khuLFk dk;kZy; esa U;kl fo/kku izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftls
lgk;d vk;qDr t;iqj }kjk vkns'k fnukad 22-11-1999 ls Lohdkj fd;k
x;kA
lgk;d vk;qDr ds vkns'k fnukad 22-11-1999 ds fo#) dksbZ vihy bl
dk;kZy; dks izkIr ugha gq;hA rRi'pkr v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds
le{k egUr jkenkl }kjk tfj;sa vf/koDrk Jh mek'kadj 'kekZ }kjk izLrqr
izkFkZuk i= ij v/khuLFk dk;kZy; }kjk i=koyh la[;k 1@2006 esa
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 24] 38] 41 o 49 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr ckn tkap fu.kZ;
fnukad 28-3-2013 }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k fd Lo0 egUr jkeksnjkpk;Z }
kjk izLrqr Ulk; fo/kku dks iwoZ v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k
fnukad 22-11-99 ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA mDr Lohdkj fd;s x;s Ulk;
dks ftyk U;k;ky; ls funZs'k vko';d gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tkap esa izdV
rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k fd /kkjk 23 esa izLrqr
izkFkZuk i= ij dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ os izUlk; fo/kku ij ftyk U;k;ky; ls
funsZ'k izkIr dj dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsaA
blh izdkj v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k la[;k 1@2007 esa
ckn tkap vius fu.kZ; fnukad 28-3-2013 }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k fd
Lo0 egUr jkeksnjkpk;Z }kjk izLrqr U;kl fo/kku dks v/khuLFk ihBklhu
vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 22-11-99 ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k FkA mDr
Lohdkj fd;s x;s fo/kku dks ftyk U;k;ky; ls funsZ'k vko';d gksus dk
(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (26 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

fu"d"kZ /kkjk 24 esa la/kkfjr i=koyh tkus dh vko';drk ugha ekurs gq,
/kkjk 41 esa fopkjk/khu dk;Zokgh dks v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Mªksi
dj fn;k x;kA
mi;qZDr nksuksa vihy la[;k 28@2013 o 29@2013 lgk;d vk;qDr
¼izFke½] nsoLFkku foHkkx] t;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 28-3-2013 izdj.k la[;k
1@2006 ,oa 1@2007 ds fo#) izLrqr dh x;h gSA lgk;d vk;qDr
¼izFke½] nsoLFkku foHkkx] t;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 28-3-2013 izdj.k la[;k
1@2006 ,oa 1@2007 ds fo#) vihy la[;k 74@20013]
35@2013 ,oa vihy la[;k 38@2013 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 10-11-2016
ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gSA mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 10-11-2016 ds ifjis{; esa
vihy la[;k 28@2013 o 29@2013 [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA"

Part D: Submissions of the Petitioners

26. In this background, being aggrieved of the aforesaid order,

Mr. Bhandari Sr. Counsel, Mr. Ranjan Sr. Counsel and Ms. Suruchi

Kasliwal, amongst others, appearing for the petitioners, submitted

that the order impugned ought to be dismissed at the threshold,

having been passed in blatant ignorance of the settled position of

law. The arguments so advanced, are briefly noted herein-under:-

26.1 On the aspect of locus standi of the Jaipur Shahar

Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das:

Learned counsel submitted that none of the complainants, more

particularly, the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri

Ramsharan Das, had any locus standi to file a complaint before

the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, as the

scheme of the Act of 1959 categorically states that complaints

under the said Act can only be filed by a person having interest or

a trustee of the Trust. Therefore, since Shri Ramsharan Das or any

other complainants were not trustees of the Trust and nor were

they persons having interest therein, as per the definition

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (27 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

enshrined under Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959, the complaints

per se were non-maintainable, which ought not to have been

considered and/or adjudicated upon by the learned Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department.

Furthermore, it was stressed that neither the Jaipur Shahar Hindu

Vikas Samiti nor Shri Ramsharan Das, ever had any sustainable

interest in the workings of Thikana Galta Ji. Moreover, said parties

were not beneficiaries of the Galta Gaddi either. In support of the

said ground of unfounded locus standi, learned counsel placed

reliance upon Sections 2(7), 2(8), 2(9) and 2(18) of the Act of

1959 which define the terms 'hereditary trustee', 'math', 'person

having interest' and 'working trustee' respectively.

26.2 On the purported illegalities in the order impugned

dated 10.11.2016:

Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned dated

10.11.2016 was passed dehors the settled position of law, for the

following reasons:-

A) That the respondents herein, had no locus standi to file the

complaints before the Devasthan Department, as per the scheme

of the Act of 1959, discussed above. Neither were the

complainants trustees of the Trust and nor were they persons

having interest in the workings of the Trust. Therefore, as the

respondents did not expressly fall under the ambit of the

aforementioned provisions, the complaint so filed by them ought

to have been dismissed at the threshold.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (28 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

B) That the learned Commissioner, Devasthan Department,

wrongly placed the burden of proof upon the petitioners herein,

for establishing the mode of succession to be hereditary in nature.

C) That the only way of challenging a trust deed is through a

civil suit. Hence, the contentions raised by the respondents-

herein, before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department qua the

fact that no efficacious inquiry was conducted by the Assistant

Commissioner regarding the rights of the Mahant and the

properties of Thikana Galta Ji, were merely conjectural.

26.3 On the aspect of resumption of Jagir of Thikana Galta Ji

Learned counsel submitted that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and

Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter, Act of 1952) came

into force on 13.02.1952. The then Mahant of the Galta Gaddi

submitted two lists before the Jagir Commissioner, wherein one

list categorically mentioned the properties belonging to the Galta

Ji temple, whereas the other included his personal properties.

Subsequently, when the Act of 1959 came into force, Mahant Shri

Ramodaracharya filed an application under Section 17 of the Act of

1959 on 26.04.1963 for registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public

Trust.

Subsequently, Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya on 26.11.1969

applied before the Jagir Commissioner, praying that the properties

mentioned in the application dated 25.10.1962 (Annexure 15 in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2016) be declared as his

personal properties. The said application was subjudice before the

learned Jagir Commissioner.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (29 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

In this background, learned counsel contended that due to

the pendency of the said application before the Jagir

Commissioner, the petitioners were barred from approaching any

other court/authority. Additionally, it was stressed that the said

properties enumerated in the application dated 25.10.1962 i.e.

disputed properties, were the personal properties of the then

Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya and not properties belonging to

Thikana Galta Ji, as they were gifted to him in his personal

capacity, over time by different rulers.

26.4 On the aspect of mode of appointment of Mahants of

Thikana Galta Ji

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the

demise of Shri Harisharnacharya on 25.10.1937, as no succeeding

heir was present, the process of appointment of Mahant of

Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi was initiated by the then Revenue

Minister of Jaipur. Thereafter, Resolution No. 9, as noted above,

was prepared. It was averred that the said resolution explicitly

stated that as no heir qua the succession of Galta Gaddi was

present, the powers of administration, selection and appointment

exclusively rested with the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Jaipur.

It was further contended that vide order dated 09.06.1943, the

then Government of the erstwhile State of Jaipur appointed Shri

Ramodaracharya as the 16th Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji. However,

on 06.06.1943, the said appointment letter was firstly forwarded

to Kamdar, Thikana Galta Ji to ascertain the wishes of Maaji Sahab

and other elders of Thikana Galta Ji, for the coronation ceremony

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (30 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

of the next Mahant, which goes on to show the hereditary nature

of succession.

Learned counsel further submitted that as Thikana Galta Ji is

a math, succession qua the post of Mahant, as per the traditions

and customs of the Thikana/Jagir/Math, had always been by way

of hereditary succession. It was further averred that only for a

short span of time and as an exception, the said appointment was

made by the State, otherwise the preceding Mahants had all been

appointed on the basis of hereditary succession.

26.5 On the ownership/nature of the disputed properties

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the properties

under dispute herein, were the personal properties of Shri

Harisharnacharya and were usufructuary mortgaged to Khawas

Balabux on 26.05.1917. However, after the demise of Shri

Harisharnacharya, without any heir/successor, and dual capacity of

Galta Ji as Jagir and Thikana, for that specific period, the

administrative powers and control over the Galta Gaddi was

transferred to the Court of Wards, temporarily and as an exception

on account of mismanagement by the erstwhile Mahant.

The trial court in the Year 1939 held that the said properties

were the properties belonging to the debutter (idol). Hence, the

same could not be alienated. However, the order passed by the

appellate court categorically reversed the findings and held that

the said properties did not belong to the idol and therefore, the

same could be alienated by the Mahant in his personal capacity.

Learned counsel further averred that four writ petitions,

namely D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5111/2004 (PIL) titled as

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (31 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Mahant Ramsharan Das and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6607/2004 titled as Mahant

Shri Ramodaracharya and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 (PIL) titled as

Jaipur Shahar Vikas Samiti and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan

and Ors. and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5650/2007 titled as

Mandir Thikana Galta Ji vs. Devasthan Department and

Ors., came to be filed before this Court, pertaining to the question

of determination of issues such as the mode of succession as

Mahant in Thikana Galta Ji and the nature of the properties

thereof. The said petitions were jointly disposed of vide order

dated 04.05.2010, noted above, with directions to the parties to

approach the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner,

Devasthan Department, to adjudicate upon the noted questions of

fact.

Additionally, learned counsel averred that on several

instances, there was a prolonged delay on part of the respondents

in the proceedings initiated before the Assistant Commissioner,

Devasthan Department and therefore, on said ground of delay

alone, the proceedings ought to have been quashed and/or not

entertained.

Lastly, learned counsel averred that the allegations of

mismanagement of the properties belonging to the Thikana Galta

Ji Trust, by way of the opening of the Gayatri Build Estate Pvt. Ltd.

with its above-noted MoA and AoA, are not worthy of

consideration as the said aims and objects of the company were

amended and consequently, deleted in the Year 2007 itself.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (32 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

Whilst culminating, in support of the contentions noted above,

learned counsel for the petitioners placed cumulative reliance

upon the dictum enunciated in Abdul Kareem Khan vs.

Municipal Committee reported in AIR 1965 SC 1744, Gheesu

Das vs. Narsingh Kansara reported in 1998 (1) WLC 28,

Mahant Balak Das vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005)

WLC (UC) 12, Channamalikarjuna vs. R.S. Patel reported in

(1995) SCC Online (Kar.) 429, State of Rajasthan vs. Aayas

Mangalnath reported in (2006) 3 DNJ 1382, Guru Padayya

vs. Chikkaya reported in AIR 1979 Kar. 2002, Sri Marthanada

Varma vs. State of Kerala reported in (2021) 1 SCC 225,

Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura vs. Patakal reported in

(2019) 16 SCC 1, His Holiness Digya Darshan vs. Devendra

Doss reported in (1973) 1 SCC 14, Board of Revenue vs. Rao

Bal Deo Singh reported in AIR 1968 SC 898 and Abdul

Kareem Khan vs. Municipal Committee reported in AIR 1965

SC 1744.

Part E: Submissions of the Respondents

27. On directions of this Court, vide order dated 18.04.2023, the

State of Rajasthan was impleaded as a necessary party. The said

order was appealed by the petitioners before the Division Bench of

this Court. However, the order dated 18.04.2023 came to be

upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 03.08.2023

and as a result, State is a party-respondent in the present batch

of writ petitions.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (33 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

28. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. M.S. Singhvi AG,

Mr. Virendra Lodha Sr. Counsel, Mr. R.K. Mathur Sr. Counsel and

Mr. B.S. Chabba AAG, Mr. Jai Dayal Sharma, Mr. Shyam Kant

Sharma and Mr. Akash Ranjan (Assistant Commissioner)

collectively prayed for the dismissal of the instant writ petition and

submitted as under:-

28.1 Learned counsel for the State, submitted that Thikana

Galta Ji, in its name, holds various properties and other assets

worth more than crores of rupees. The said properties, as on date,

fall under the guardianship of the State Government. However, the

same were illegally and arbitrarily misused and misappropriated

by the Mahant. Resultantly, many petitions and complaints were

filed against the said misappropriation of properties by the

Mahant. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 24,38 and 49 of

the Act of 1959 were initiated. Moreover, the Division Bench vide

order dated 04.05.2007 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

2321/2006 titled as Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors., directed the Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department to act in accordance with

the provisions of the Act of 1959 and do the needful for

appointment of 'working trustees' in the Thikana Galta Ji Trust.

28.2 On the aspect of locus standi of the Jaipur Shahar

Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das:

Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon

the provisions enshrined under Section 2(9)(a) of the Act of 1959

and submitted that the said definition explicitly states that every

person who is entitled to visit the temple, falls under the ambit of

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (34 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

a 'person having interest'. Moreover, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 2321/2006 titled as Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti

vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., the Division Bench of this

Court, vide order dated 04.05.2010, had given liberty to the

respondents herein, to apply and become a party in the

proceedings pending before the Assistant Commissioner,

Devasthan Department. The relevant extract of the order dated

04.05.2010, giving said liberty is reproduced herein-under:-

"According to us, both the issues are pending
consideration before the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department as it has been admitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent no.6 (Shri Avdesh
Kumar), who is present holding the post of Mahant.
In view of the aforesaid, Public Interest Litigations
can be disposed of as one and the same issue cannot
be decided in Public Interest Litigation, when
statutory enquiry under Section 24 of the Act of 1959
is pending for consideration before the Assistant
Commissioner, Devasthan Department. In view of
the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the
issues raised before us would be decided by the
Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department
after hearing all the parties and in this regard,
the petitioners in the writ petition No.
2321/2006 would be at liberty to participate in
the hearing by making a proper application and
would further be at liberty to substantiate their
grounds by submitting necessary documents."

28.3 On the nature of appointment of Mahant of Thikana

Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that

succession on the post of Mahant was guru-chela padati, on

merits. It was averred that even if it was momentarily assumed

that the succession on the post of Mahant was hereditary in

nature, then in such an eventuality, Shri Harisharnacharya would

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (35 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

not have been removed from the post of Mahant by the then State

Government. Moreover, subsequent to his removal, Shri

Harisharnacharya had made several prayers/applications before

the Revenue Minister for re-appointment as the Mahant, however,

the same came to be rejected (Annexure R-2/3 in S.B. CWP No.

16511/2016). Shri Harisharnacharya, prior to his demise, had also

recommended Shri Radhey Shyam i.e. his grandson, for

succession on the post of Mahant. However, the said

recommendation came to be rejected as well by the council of the

erstwhile State of Jaipur vide order dated 03.10.1939, highlighting

the absence of any signs of hereditary succession.

In this background, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the petitioners had contended that the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji was appointed by the predecessor Mahant amongst his shishyas or successors. However, the petitioners had failed to support the said contention with valid requisites and/or evidence before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department. Not even a single document was furnished that signified that the predecessor Mahant appointed his shishya/heir as the successor Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji. Therefore, the order impugned calls for no interference.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a bare perusal of the affidavit by the State in S.B. CWP No. 16461/2016 explicitly clarifies that the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji was always appointed on merits by the erstwhile State of Jaipur, whose natural and perpetual successor post-independence was the (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (36 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] State of Rajasthan. The relevant extract of the said affidavit is reproduced herein-under:-

"That in this respect, it is also submitted that the State has granted permission of marriage to Shri Ramodaracharya ji on 26.05.1956 with a condition which is as under:-

"bu fooknksa ds fo'k; esa iznku dh xbZ vuqefr ls ewy xzkUV dh uspj esa rFkk mRrjkf/kdkjh ls lacf/kr orZeku jhfr fjoktksa esa dksbZ rCnhyh ugha gksxhA"

Hence, the series of events up to 1963 clearly reveal that the appointment of Mahant Ramodaracharya ji was by the Jaipur State, i.e. the erstwhile government and as such, such appointment of trustee was exclusively for the management of trust and the right of such appointment vested only with the Government." Moreover, Shri Ramodaracharya himself, in his application for registration of the Thikana Galta Ji Trust (Annexure R/25 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016) had written that any person out of his son shall be appointed as Mahant, with the consent of the State. Therefore, the said inclusion of the term i.e. 'consent of the State' depicts that the power of appointment of Mahant lay with the State Government and never with the predecessor Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji.

28.4 On the rights and duties of the Mahant Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Shri Ramodaracharya was appointed as Mahant by the erstwhile State of Jaipur, only after the publication of an advertisement and following the due selection process, on merits. It was further submitted that at the time of appointment, the Mahant did not have any suo moto powers. Therefore, vide repetitive request (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (37 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] applications to the authorities of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, the Mahant attained the limited rights to do seva pooja only. The said applications are marked as Annexures R-2/5, R-2/6, R-2/7, R-2/8, R-2/9, R-2/10 and R-2/11 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016.

Accordingly, learned counsel argued that it was explicit that Shri Ramodaracharya had to seek permission from the erstwhile State of Jaipur, even for performing rudimentary activities, apart from doing seva pooja. Hence, the question of ownership of the disputed properties does not arise. Furthermore, the duties of the Mahant exclusively pertain to the performing of sevayat/seva pooja of the idol, whose is a perpetual minor. Hence, the role of the Mahant was only in the nature of being ancillary and custodial, to protect the properties belonging to the idol of Thikana Galta Ji. 28.5 On the ownership of the properties of Thikana Galta Ji Learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is a recognized principle of law that the person claiming an adverse position has to establish the proof of ownership/title. Hence, in the matter at hand, the burden of proof to establish the fact of ownership of properties lay on the petitioners, as it is them who claim that the properties in dispute herein, were the personal properties of the Mahant as opposed to being properties belonging to the Thikana Galta Ji.

Furthermore, learned counsel averred that the said properties per se belong to the idol. Hence, the absolute owner of the said properties belonging to Thikana Galta Ji, is the idol. However, considering that the idol is a perpetual minor, the rights qua the management and alienation of the said properties, (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (38 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] however limited, lay with the State i.e. its guardian and not the Mahant, whose role is largely limited to performance of seva pooja. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in M. Siddiq (dead) through legal representatives vs. Mahant Suresh Dash and Ors. reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 (hereinafter, referred as the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment) and Sanwat Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1961 SC 715.

Learned counsel also apprised the Court of the fact that vide order dated 01.05.1943, the High Court of the erstwhile State of Jaipur had categorically mentioned that 35 shops, 1 nohra and 2 thaddies fell under the ownership of Thikana Galta Ji. It was also argued that it was an undisputed fact that the said judgment qua the ownership with Thikana Galta Ji was passed on 01.05.1943 whereas, Shri Ramodaracharya was appointed as Mahant on 09.06.1943. Therefore, leaving no iota of doubt, the clarification and/or ascertainment qua the ownership of the said properties was drawn prior to the very appointment of Shri Ramodaracharya, in favour of Thikana Galta Ji. Hence, it cannot be said that the said properties were the personal properties of the Mahant. 28.6 On whether Galta Peeth/Thikana Galta Ji belonged to the Ramanuj Sect or Ramanand Sect?

In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the historical background of Thikana Galta Ji. It was submitted that the Thikana was established by Shri Krishna Das Payohari, who was disciple of the Ramanand Sampradaya. Learned counsel contended that Shri Ramodaracharya, who was appointed (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (39 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] by the erstwhile State of Jaipur, also belonged to the Ramanand Sampradaya. The said fact can be inferred from the seals/symbols used on the letters written by the Mahant, to address the distinct identity of the said Sampradaya (Annexure R-2/5 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016).

Learned counsel further contended that for a particular period, Shri Madholal Mathur, Assistant Professor of Maharaja College, Jaipur was appointed to supervise the seva pooja performed by the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji. In a letter, he had addressed that the pandits and persons belonging to the Ramanuj Sampradaya, were against the then Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya. Hence, it can be inferred that Shri Ramodaracharya was a disciple of Ramanand Sampradaya (Annexure-R 2/7 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016).

Moreover, learned counsel submitted that there were several instances where the Ram Mantra, specifically belonging to the disciples of Ramanand Sampradaya, was pronounced to the then His Highness of Jaipur and the other devotees (Annexure R-1/9 in S.B. CWP No. 16461/2016).

It was only due to the said belief in the Ramanand Sampradaya, that the Mahants were required to seek permissions from the erstwhile Jaipur State, before getting married, as the Ramanand Sampradaya's disciples follow the principles of 'Brahamcharya'. The scriptures belonging to the Ramanand Sampradaya explicitly articulate that no person who is married, shall be appointed as Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji. (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (40 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 28.7 Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Shri Ramodaracharya with malafide intentions, without proper sanction/permission from the concerned authorities, amended the bylaws regulating the administration and management of the Thikana Galta Ji Trust in the Year 1999. Learned counsel averred that by way of the said amendment, Shri Ramodaracharya through fraud and misrepresentation, being hand-in-glove with the Devasthan Department, without the conduct of any enquiry, got the amended bylaws registered whereby he inculcated his own family members as members of the Trust/trustees and nominated himself as the Chairman of the Board of said Trust and changed the mode of succession to be hereditary in nature, thereby limiting the further succession on the post of Mahant to be within his family, which is dehors the settled position of law and custom/past practice.

28.8 As a result, in cumulative view of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the instant batch of writ petitions, with a hefty cost.

Part F: Issues/Points of Determination by this Court

29. This Court, after conducting prolonged day to day hearings, and having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties and only after scanning through the voluminous record of the instant batch of petitions, has felt it appropriate to formulate the following issues and/or points of determination for this Court, adjudication of which, shall inadvertently put a quietus to the lis before this (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (41 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Court. The issues/points of determination for this Court, are noted herein-under:-

Primary Issues:

(i) Whether the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti, Shri Ramsharan Das (now deceased) and the other respondents before this Court, possessed the locus standi to raise their grievance before the Devasthan Department?

(ii) Whether appointment on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi is hereditary in nature or the same is to be administered through a systematic selection process, on merits, by the State?

(iii) Whether the disputed properties belong to Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi (public property-State) or are they the personal properties of the Mahant?

Ancillary Issues

(iv) Whether the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji, subsequent to the Year 1943, can be assumed to be a Jagirdar?

(v) Whether the registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust in the Year 1963 and the subsequent alteration of the bylaws in the Year 1999, were in accordance with the due process of law?

(vi) Whether there was any mismanagement, concealment and fraud committed by the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi?

(vii) Whether Thikana Galta Ji can be classified as a math or not?

Part G: Discussion and Findings

30. As a precursor to recording findings on the issues formulated above, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the following statutory provisions, an analysis of which shall aid and (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (42 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] assist this Court in putting a quietus to the lis before the Court. The statutory provisions are noted herein-under:-

(I) Section 17 of the Act of 1959 "Section 17: Registration of Public Trusts (1) Within 1[two years] from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust.

(2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by Sub-section (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more than three months.

(3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed.

(4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely--

(i) the origin (so far as known), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known;

(ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate;

(iii) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the Manager;

(iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee;

(v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof;

(vi) the approximate value of the movable or immovable property;

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (43 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

(vii) the gross average annual income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period is shorter, and, in the case of newly created public trust, the estimated gross annual income from all such sources;

(viii) the amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under Clause (vii) relate, and in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust;

(ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or Manager in connection with the public trust may be sent;

(x) such other particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that the rules made may provide that in the case of any oral public trusts, it shall not be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and such kind as may be specified therein.

(5) Every application made under Sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed.

(6) No Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Assistant (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (44 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust.

(7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, given under Sub-section (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the order of the Assistant Commissioner under Sub-section (6) shall be final."

Section 17 of the Act of 1959 provides for the registration of public trusts. Through the said provision, the legislature mandates the 'working trustee' of the public trust to apply before the Assistant Commissioner having due jurisdiction, for the registration of such a public trust. Whilst seeking registration, the 'working trustee' ought to submit an application within the prescribed time period and proforma, containing material information enveloping the subject trust, including the key particulars such as the nature and object of the public trust, place of its office, the mode of succession to the office of the trustee and the list of the movable and immovable trust properties along with the value of said properties and income derived therefrom, if any, amongst other particulars. The said application must be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of the trust and in an event where the trust property includes immovable property, then the relevant entries relating to such property in the record of rights ought to be enclosed with the application as well. (II) Section 18 of the Act of 1959 "Section 18: Inquiry for Registration-

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (45 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] (1) On receipt of an application under Section 17 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Assistant Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining--

(i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust;

(ii) whether any property is the property of such trust;

(iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is situate within his jurisdiction;

(iv) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the Manager of such trust;

(v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust;

(vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust;

(vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust; and

(viii) the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under Subsection (4) of Section 17.

(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under Subsection (1) and invite all persons having interest in the public trust under inquiry to prefer within sixty days objections, if any, in respect of such trust." Section 18 of the Act of 1959 provides for the inquiry mandatorily to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, prior to issuing the certificate of registration of the public trust. The word used in Section 18(1) is "shall" thereby making the inquiry to be conducted binding upon the Assistant Commissioner, be it of his own volition or upon receiving an application under Section 17 by a 'working trustee' or by a person having interest in the public (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (46 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] trust. The purpose of conducting such inquiry includes ascertainment of the existence and nature of the trust, its origin, nature and object coupled with the mode of succession to the office of the trustees and the existence of any property under the said trust, amongst others. The inquiry also assumes paramount importance as the same is conducted to verify the entries made by the 'working trustee' under Section 17(4). Furthermore, Section 18(2) mandates the Assistant Commissioner to call for objections, by way of a public notice, with regards to the inquiry proposed to be made under Section 18(1). The time frame provided for inviting such objections is 60 days. It is pertinent to note that the said objections are invited from 'all persons having interest' in the public trust under inquiry.


(III) Section 19 of the Act of 1959

         "Section 19:         Finding          of      the        Assistant
         Commissioner-

On completion of the inquiry provided for under Section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings with the reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in the said section."

Section 19 of the Act of 1959 mandates the Assistant Commissioner to record specific findings along with reasons, on the enquiry so conducted as per the provisions of Section 18(1), pursuant to having invited the objections, by way of a public notice, as provided under Section 18(2).

(IV) Section 20 of the Act of 1959 "Section 20: Appeal-

Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (47 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] property, aggrieved by a finding of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19, may, within two months from the date of its publication in the notice board of the Assistant Commissioner, file an appeal before the Commissioner to have such findings set aside or modified."

Section 20 of the Act of 1959 provides for the mechanism of filing an appeal, when aggrieved of the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19, after having conducted the inquiry so mandated by the provisions of Section 18(1) and 18(2). It is pertinent to note that an appeal may be preferred by either, the public trustee or 'any person having interest' in the public trust or in any property found to be trust property. (V) Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959 "Section 2(9): "Person having interest" or any expression signifying a person having interest in a public trust includes--

(a) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partaking or is in the habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof;

(b) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs;

(c) in the case of a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (Rajasthan Act 28 of 1958) or under any other analogous law in force in any part of the State, any member of such society; and

(d) in the case of any other public trust, any beneficiary."

Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959 sheds clarity on the meaning of the term "person having interest" as used by the legislature in (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (48 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Sections 18 and 20. In the case of a temple, a "person having interest" shall be an individual who is entitled to attend and/or habitually attends the performance of worship or service in the temple. Whereas, in the case of a math, a disciple of the same could be construed as a "person having interest". Lastly, in the case of any other public trust, any "beneficiary" of the said trust, could be treated as a "person having interest". Primary Issues Issue No. 1:

Whether the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti, Shri Ramsharan Das (now deceased) and the other respondents before this Court, possessed the locus standi to raise their grievance before the Devasthan Department?

31. Having taken note of the foregoing provisions, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that in order to ascertain whether or not the respondents before this Court had the locus standi to raise their grievance before the Devasthan Department (Assistant Commissioner) as spelled out under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act of 1959, this Court must undertake the exercise of determining whether Shri Ramsharan Das or the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti, fell within the ambit of the term i.e. "person having interest", as defined by Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959.

32. Relevant to the stipulations of the dispute at hand, Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959, as discussed above, defines a "person having interest" in two ways, namely:-

(i) As per Section 2(9)(a), in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (49 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] of worship. The said definition would include within its ambit all those individuals/worshippers who regularly attend the temple proceedings and/or are core believers/worshippers of the deity therein.

(ii) Whereas, as per Section 2(9)(d), in the case of any other public trust, any beneficiary. This Court deems it apposite to take it upon itself to construe the contours of the term "beneficiary", especially when the same finds place within the contextual framework of a public trust registered with the core values of religion and spirituality i.e. Thikana Galta Ji.

In this regard, it is noted that the definition of a "beneficiary" does not necessarily connote a person who extracts monetary gains from the public trust, but also expands to a person/institute/body which has interest in the public trust as a custodian for their own spiritual and religious perquisites. In other words, beneficiaries draw satisfaction and personal growth from the said trust, not necessarily monetary, but also religious and spiritual.

33. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case, it is noted that by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959, the legislature in its wisdom has carved out a way for permitting a "person having interest" in the working of the said public trust, to raise objections under Section 18(2) in relation to the inquiry to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 18(1) prior to the registration of the public trust, pursuant to having received an application under Section 17 of the Act of 1959. The "person having interest" may be a worshipper or (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (50 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] beneficiary of the trust registered for the idol of Thikana Galta Ji, which happens to be a perpetual minor (an aspect which shall be elaborately discussed shortly). The "person having interest" may raise an objection to protect the interests of the said idol and trust, and also safeguard its unhindered administration from any perceived and/or apparent threats of malpractice and mismanagement, which may possess the capacity to obliterate the very aims and objects in lieu of which the said public trust was formulated and registered. Such objections may also be raised by the "persons having interest" to protect the idol/Thikana Galta Ji from any perceived and/or apparent threats with regards to the Mahant overstepping the limits of their authority.

34. The prima facie intention to confer such powers of intervention upon a "person having interest" in the said public trust, is to ensure that checks and balances go hand-in-hand with the inquiry so conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, and wherever necessary, at the first site of irregularity and/or factual inaccuracy, an objection is raised to ultimately safeguards the interests of the idol of Thikana Galta Ji.

35. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in the celebrated judgment of Ram Janmabhoomi (Supra), which is reproduced herein- under:-

"341. A necessary adjunct of managing of the temple properties is the right to sue for recovery of the said properties. Ordinarily a shebait alone will be entitled to bring a suit on behalf of the idol. In addition to being convenient and providing immediate recourse for the idol, it also provides a valuable check (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (51 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] against strangers instituting suits, the outcomes of which may adversely impact the idol without the knowledge of the idol or the shebait. But there may be cases where the conduct of a shebait is in question. In certain cases, where the shebait itself is negligent or sets up a claim hostile to the idol, it is open for a worshipper or a next friend interested in protecting the properties of the idol to file a suit to remedy the situation. In the above case, by entering into the compromise decree declaring the temple properties as personal properties of the Defendant shebaits, the Defendants set up a title contrary to the title of the idol itself. This Court held that it was hence permissible for the Plaintiffs, who were worshippers, to maintain a suit invalidating the compromise decree.

342. However, in Vemareddi Reddy, the suit was not instituted on behalf of the deity. The suit was instituted in a personal capacity by the worshipper seeking a declaration that the property in question was debutter property. In this context, the court held:

"10. ... If a shebait has improperly alienated trust property a suit can be brought by any person interested for a declaration that such alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the Plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the possession. Worshippers of a temple are in the position of cestui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense. ... Since worshippers do not exercise the deity's power of suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to recover possession of the property improperly alienated by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity."

The significance of the distinction between suing on behalf of the deity and the institution of a suit in a personal capacity for the benefit of the deity will be adverted to shortly.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (52 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

351. In view of these observations, it is apparent that where the interests of the idol need to be protected, merely permitting interested worshippers to sue in their personal capacity does not afford the deity sufficient protections in law. In certain situations, a next friend must be permitted to sue on behalf of the idol-directly exercising the deity's right to sue. The question of relief is fundamentally contextual and must be framed by the court in light of the parties before it and the circumstances of each case.

352. This, however, brings us to the second question whether allowing a next friend to sue on behalf of the idol puts the idol at risk. The idol and its properties must be protected against the threat of a wayward 'next friend'. Where the shebait acts in a mala fide manner, any person claiming to be a 'next friend' may sue. Such a person may in truth have intentions hostile to the deity and sue under false provenance. Even a well-intentioned worshipper may sue as a next friend and purely due to financial constraints or negligence lose the suit and adversely bind the deity. A solution offered by Justice Pal in Tarit Bhushan Rai, and urged by Dr. Dhavan in the present proceedings, is that only court appointed next friends may sue on behalf of the idol. No doubt this would satisfy the court that the next friend is bona fide and can satisfactorily represent the deity.

353. It is true that unless the fitness of the next friend is tested in some manner, an individual whose bona fides has not been determined may represent and bind the idol to its detriment. However, it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require every next friend to first be appointed by a court or for a court to find a disinterested person to represent the deity. The deity's interests would be sufficiently protected if, in cases where the bona fides of the next friend are contested by another party, the court substantively examines whether the next friend is fit to represent the idol. In an appropriate case, the court can do so of its own accord where it considers it necessary to protect the interest of the deity. In the absence of any objection, and where a court sees no deficiencies in the actions of the next friend, (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (53 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] there is no reason why a worshipper should not have the right to sue on behalf of the deity where a shebait abandons his sacred and legal duties. Very often, worshippers are best placed to witness and take action against any maladministration by a shebait. Therefore, where a shebait acts adverse to the interests of the deity, a worshipper can, as next friend of the deity, sue on behalf of the deity itself, provided that if the next friend's bona fides are contested, the court must scrutinise the intentions and capabilities of the next friend to adequately represent the deity. The court may do so of its own accord, ex debito justitae."

36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it can be conclusively inferred that a "next friend" of the idol, who happens to be a worshipper or beneficiary of the public trust (in present facts, "person having interest") possesses the authority to sue on behalf of the idol, to protect and safeguard the interests of the idol, especially where it appears that the actions of those individual(s) entrusted with the management and service of the idol, are purportedly overstepping their bounds and acting in excess of the limits of their authority.

37. At this juncture, it is made clear that such permission to raise objections, as granted to the "person having interest" for a perceived mismanagement, does not necessarily connote and/or establish malpractice on part of the Mahant or otherwise. Rather, such permission enabling the worshipper/beneficiary to raise objections under Section 18(2), is significant of the overarching and all-encompassing goal of safeguarding the interest of the idol, who cannot sue of its own volition. The act of adjudicating upon the objection perceiving mismanagement/irregularity/fallacy, shall (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (54 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] nevertheless, lay with the Assistant Commissioner. But, the very permission to initiate such proceedings, by way of a raising an objection, keeps the authorities in check and ensures that the public trust is administered in its intended manner, sans any irregularities. Having said that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ram Janmabhoomi (Supra) has categorically spelled out that before entertaining such a challenge, the bonafides of the worshipper/beneficiary for raising such an objection ought to be ascertained, especially when such bonafides are contested.

38. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have merely raised the contention that the respondents herein, did not possess the locus standi to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, which ultimately birthed the present proceedings. However, whilst doing so, the ground of challenge has been limited to the purported lack of statutory authority to raise such a challenge and not the incapacity, on account of malice or greed, which may preclude the respondents to raise said grievance before the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, in such an event, when merely the locus standi of the respondents is challenged, without an attack on their integrity, this Court deems it fit to vault across the burden of assessing the bonafides of the respondents i.e. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das, and seal their right to raise objections, subject to them qualifying as the "next friend"

of the idol of Thikana Galta Ji.

39. Upon a perusal of the voluminous record before this Court and during the course of hearing, this Court was apprised of the (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (55 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] fact that the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti, as is evident from its name, is a body concerned with the holistic welfare of the followers of the Hindu faith in the city. In this regard, it is also an admitted fact that Thikana Galta Ji is a pilgrimage for the followers of the Hindu faith. Therefore, if any purported mismanagement and misappropriation is brought to the attention of such a Samiti, who protects the interests of the worshippers of Thikana Galta Ji, being a Hindu pilgrimage, then in such an event, the Samiti would be well within its rights, having interest in the public trust, to bring forth such perceived threats to the attention of the Assistant Commissioner, by way of an objection as provided for under Section 18(2) and also, Section 20 of the Act of 1959. Even otherwise, a "beneficiary", which would include within its ambit any individual who draws satisfaction and personal growth from the said trust, which may not necessarily be monetary but also religious and spiritual, would also qualify to be a "person having interest" who may institute such an objection before the Assistant Commissioner. Inadvertently, such a definition of "person having interest" as provided under Section 2(9) would include within its ambit Shri Ramsharan Das along with the other respondents, who are both worshippers of Thikana Galta Ji and beneficiaries of the said trust, for their religious perquisites.

40. Even otherwise, the word "any" as used in Section 2(9)(d) would include "all" beneficiaries. In this regard, it is noted that in order to fill the gaps in the positive law, it can be deduced that a "person having interest" shall categorically signify/include any/all persons, who claim to be beneficiaries of the trust. The matter at (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (56 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] hand pertains to a holy site, which is visited by innumerable persons on several occasions, wherein the visitors/bhakts take holy baths in the kunds (water tanks) situated within the premises of Thikana Galta Ji. Hence, the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das can be reckoned as entities having a direct interest in Thikana Galta Ji.

41. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that previously, when the proceedings were ongoing in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2321/2016 titled as Jaipur Shahar Vikas Samiti and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., the present contention qua the locus standi of the respondents was briefly touched upon, and vide order dated 04.05.2010, the Division Bench of this Court had granted liberty to the said respondents i.e. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das to participate in the hearing by making a proper application and to substantiate their grounds by submitting necessary documents. The aforesaid liberty was never contested by the petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority. Moreover, a bare perusal of the order dated 04.05.2010 shall also make it glaringly clear that Mr. Bajwa, counsel formerly appearing on behalf of the petitioners-herein before the Division Bench, had submitted before the Court that they shall have no objection if the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti were to contest and/or participate in the hearing before the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, such consent given on 04.05.2010 automatically precludes the petitioners-herein to take a contrary stance and oppose the respondents very locus standi at a subsequent stage, on account of unfavorable findings. Such a (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (57 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] delayed objection qua the locus standi of the respondents, shall inevitably attract the doctrine of acquiescence.

42. It is also important to observe that the petitioners, who are all members of one family, have intentionally and with ulterior motive, not impleaded the State as a necessary party, in-spite of the fact that as per the settled position of law, the idol is a minor and State is its guardian/custodian. It was only as per directions of this Court that the State was impleaded as a party, which on challenge before the Division Bench, was upheld. Therefore, once the State is opposing the rights and claim of the petitioner and supporting the judgment of the Devasthan Authorities rendered in the Year 2013, the challenge to the locus standi itself collpases.

43. Therefore, in cumulative light of the foregoing observations, the primary contention of the petitioners regarding the purported absence of locus standi on part of the Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti and Shri Ramsharan Das, cannot be countenanced. Issue No. 2 Whether appointment on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi is hereditary in nature or the same is to be administered through a systematic selection process, on merits, by the State?

44. In order to ascertain the mode of succession on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi, this Court must scrutinize the record before this Court to take note of the historical practice of appointment of Mahant, as is also discussed above, which corresponds with the findings of the fact find-finding authority i.e. (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (58 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Devasthan Department, of which the petitioners before this Court are aggrieved.

45. As per the record, it is evident that Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari Maharaj established the Galta Gaddi in Samvat Year 1560 i.e. 1530 AD and became the first Mahant of the Galta Gaddi. Pursuant to the demise of the founder Mahant i.e. Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari, Shri Keel Das Ji was appointed by the erstwhile State of Jaipur as the successive Mahant of the Galta Gaddi. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur continued to appoint Mahants pursuant to the demise of their predecessors. In continuation, Shri Harisharnacharya was appointed as Mahant of the Galta Gaddi in the Year 1920. However, on account of certain mismanagement of the properties of the Galta Gaddi/Thikana, Shri Harisharnacharya was removed from the post of Mahant in the Year 1924. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur, vide order/notification dated 22.10.1924, took all the assets and management of the Thikana Galta Ji under the control of the Court of Wards. The aforesaid control subsisted until 09.01.1949.

46. Shri Harisharnacharya, after his removal from the post of Mahant, vide letter dated 31.03.1935 (Annexure-R-2/3 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016) requested the then Revenue Minister to re- appoint or continue his service as the Mahant of Galta Gaddi. However, the said request was turned down. Subsequently, in the Year 1937, Shri Harisharnacharya died.

47. Prior to his demise, Shri Harisharnacharya made certain recommendations for the successive appointment on the post of Mahant. As per him, Shri Radhey Shyam (S/O Rama Bai) i.e. his (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (59 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] grandson through his daughter, was the first preference for appointment on the post of Mahant. However, the erstwhile State of Jaipur, vide Resolution No. 9 dated 03.10.1939, rejected the said recommendation and observed that all the rights qua the appointment of any person as Mahant of Galta Gaddi, shall be dependent upon the will of the His Highness or 'His Highness Marzi'. Vide said resolution, it was made clear that selection and appointment on the post of Mahant shall be made solely on the basis of merit, with a proper selection process and not by hereditary succession.

48. Thereafter, in pursuance of Resolution No. 9 dated 03.10.1939 (Annexure R-2/4 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016), an advertisement dated 10.10.1942 (marked as Annexure-12 in S.B. CWP No. 16327/2016) was published for selection and appointment of Mahant for the Galta Gaddi. The said advertisement categorically prescribed the paramount conditions for the selection and appointment on the post of Mahant. A few of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement included the possession of thorough knowledge of the principles of the sampradaya to which the temple belongs, having a good moral character and the absence of any antecedents, amongst others.

49. After due consideration of all the pre-requisite conditions, vide order dated 09.06.1943 (Annexure 2 in S.B. CWP No. 16327/2016), Mahant of Lohargal i.e. Shri Ramodaracharya was appointed as the 16th Mahant of the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta Ji. The said appointment order, registered as Order No. 744, was undersigned by the Chief Secretary of the erstwhile State of (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (60 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Jaipur. The aspect of Shri Ramodaracharya's appointment as Mahant purely on merit and not by hereditary succession gains further strength from the fact that even the Rajasthan High Court, in its subsequent order dated 11.11.1954 had categorically observed and recorded a finding to the effect of admission on part of Shri Ramodaracharya, that he was not the legal heir of the erstwhile Mahant.

50. In this background, disputing the foregoing findings of the fact finding authority i.e. Devasthan Department, regarding the mode of succession to the post of Mahant being by the will of the erstwhile State of Jaipur through a selection process, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that after the demise of Shri Harisharnacharya on 25.10.1937, as no succeeding heir was present, the process of appointment of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi was initiated by the then Revenue Minister of Jaipur. Thereafter, Resolution No. 9, as noted above, was prepared. It was averred that the said resolution explicitly stated that as no heir qua the succession of Galta Gaddi was present, the powers of administration, selection and appointment exclusively rested with the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Jaipur. In essence, learned counsel argued that only for a short span of time, as an exception, the said appointment was made by the State, otherwise the preceding Mahants had all been appointed on the basis of hereditary succession, as the predecessor Mahant out of his shishyas selected their successor.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (61 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

51. However, this Court, after having scrutinized the record, cannot countenance the plea of hereditary succession of Mahants, as advanced by the petitioners, for the following reasons:-

51.1 That the petitioners have categorically failed to place on record any appointment letter/note of acknowledgment exhibiting the appointment of a shishya/lineal successor as the subsequent Mahant by the erstwhile Mahant. Rather, evidence to the contrary i.e. Resolution 9 dated 03.10.1939 (Annexure R-2/4 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016), goes on to show in categoric terms that that all the rights qua the appointment of any person as Mahant of Galta Gaddi, shall be dependent upon the will of the His Highness or 'His Highness Marzi'.

51.2 That in order to prove the claim of hereditary succession on the post of Mahant or contrastingly, disprove the findings of the learned Commissioner, Devasthan Department, the petitioners ought to have adduced sufficient evidence showcasing the appointment of Mahants by way of hereditary succession.

However, no such evidence was adduced. The basic tenets of evidence law mandate the party asserting a fact to prove the existence of the same. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which are reproduced herein-under:-

"Section 101: Burden of proof.

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (62 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 51.3 Therefore, as the petitioners wished for this Court to rule on the purported/claimed right of succession on the post of Mahant to be hereditary in nature, the petitioners ought to have adduced evidence exhibiting such succession, be it by way of an appointment letter of a subsequent Mahant by the sole will and marzi of their predecessor or otherwise. However, in the absence of any such evidence, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proof to claim the existence and prevalence of hereditary succession, as opposed to that on merits by the erstwhile State, in support of which sufficient evidence on record exists.

51.4 That Resolution No. 9, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that the selection and appointment on the post of Mahant shall be made solely on the basis of merit, with a proper selection process and not by hereditary succession. The relevant extract of Resolution No. 9 dated 03.10.1939 is reproduced herein-under:-

"Resolved -

(1) that the grant being in Bhog is an endowment for religious trust and should be maintained.

(2) that the male heir, the appointment of a new trustee rests exclusively with His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur, (3) that the Home Minister should pat up, for selection of the trustee, the names of candidates reputed for their learning and character and belonging to Ramanuj sect of Vaisnavites, and (4) that the Judicial and Home Ministers should submit a scheme for the future administration of the trust, and succession to the trustee, not inconsistent with the original object of the trust."

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (63 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 51.5 That clause (2), (3) and (4) of Resolution No. 9 provide for the drawing out of a scheme for the selection and appointment of the subsequent trustee (Mahant), as per the will of his Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur (erstwhile State of Jaipur). In this regard, a scheme for selection was also directed to be formulated, which further cements the exclusive role of the erstwhile State in administering selection of the subsequent Mahant, especially when vide Resolution No. 9, recommendations made by the erstwhile Mahant Shri Harisharnacharya, for the appointment of his grandson, also came to be rejected, thereby nullifying the theory of hereditary succession.

51.6 That the aspect of lineal hereditary succession also fails to gain the confidence of this Court on account of the glaring fact that till the 7th succession, the Mahant's were not permitted to marry, thereby precluding the practice of lineal succession altogether.

51.7 That Article 372 read with Article 296 of the Constitution of India provides for continuity of laws from the pre- independence era to the post-independence era, unless expressly scrapped and/or amended by a novel legislation. Therefore, the practice of the Mahant being appointed by way of a selection procedure on merits by the will of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, shall remain consistent post-independent as well, with the mere shift in appointing authority from the erstwhile State of Jaipur to the elected State Government. Moreover, in light of Articles 18 and 363A of the Constitution of India, when recognition granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Indian State has ceased and privy (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (64 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] purses/titles are abolished under Article 372 and 296 of the Constitution of India, the future enactments shall come into play. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in the judgment of Ram Janmabhoomi (Supra), relevant extract of which, is reproduced herein-under:-

"651. With respect to the change of legal regime between the British sovereign and the Republic of India, there exists a line of continuity. Article 372 of the Constitution embodies the legal continuity between the British sovereign and independent India. Article 372(1) states:

"(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority."

Article 296 of the Constitution states:

"Subject as hereinafter provided, any property in the territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, shall, if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State, and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union."

These articles in the Constitution evidence a legal continuity between the British sovereign and the Republic of India. Moreover, the conduct of the Republic of India subsequent to attaining Independence was to uphold private property claims that existed during the Rule of the British sovereign. It cannot be said that upon independence, all pre- existing private claims between citizens inter se were extinguished. They were recognised unless (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (65 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] modified or revoked by the express acts of the Indian government. For the present purposes therefore, there is both express and implied recognition that the independent Indian sovereign recognised the private claims over property as they existed under the British sovereign unless expressly evidenced otherwise. Therefore, the rights of the parties to the present dispute which occurred during the colonial regime can be enforced by this Court today.

51.8 That the State of Rajasthan, by way of the affidavit filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16461/2016 titled as Dr. Ramesh Mishra and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., has clarified that the right of appointment of Mahant vested solely with the erstwhile State of Jaipur, which as on date, would be the State Government.

51.9 That even the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, Devasthan Department vide inquiry reports dated 02.12.1992, 17.02.2004 and 31.07.2006 have ascertained that the Acharya/Mahant/Shebait/Manager was always appointed by the erstwhile State of Jaipur (Annexures R-2/29, R-2/30 and R- 2/32 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16511/2016). 51.10 That even during the previous litigation before this Court, the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 titled as Jaipur Shahar Vikas Samiti and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., vide interim order dated 04.05.2007, had directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct the proceedings of appointment of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji as per the provisions enshrined under Article 41 of the Act of 1959. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings and invited applications for appointment on the post of Mahant, which (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (66 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] signifies the role of a neutral third-party and not the wishes of the predecessor Mahant, in selecting the subsequent Mahant. Moreover, even in the order impugned dated 10.11.2016, the Commissioner, Devasthan Department had directed the continuance of the process of appointment of the Mahant by the Court of the District Judge of the concerned area as per the Act of 1959.

51.11 That vide order dated 27.04.1981 notified in the Rajasthan Gazette on 25.06.1981, by way of which the registration of the public trust was cancelled, the State of Rajasthan had assumed all powers inclusive of appointment of Mahant and ownership of properties of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi under Chapter 10 of the Act of 1959 as supurdegi shreni. 51.12 That the application for registration of trust filed in the Year 1963 by the 'working trustee' who manages/administers the trust, who happened to be the Mahant i.e. Shri Ramodaracharya under Section 17 of the Act of 1959, included the word parampragat instead of vansh parampragat/hereditary, which signifies that the succession on the post of working trustee was not meant to be hereditary in nature, a direct inference of which, when read with Resolution No. 9 dated 03.10.1939, implies that the appointment on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji was never hereditary in nature and rather, the State was the perpetual successor of Thikana Galta Ji, which also happened to appoint the Mahant, on merits.

51.13 Lastly, the aforementioned view regarding the appointment of Mahant by the State gets further corroborated by (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (67 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] the fact that Sections 41 and 43 of the Act of 1959 make it mandatory that upon the death of the working trustee, an application has to be filed by the new working trustee under Section 41, upon which an enquiry shall be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter, the novel working trustee shall be appointed by the court having due jurisdiction under Section 43, whilst duly acknowledging the custom and usage of the public trust and its objectives. This procedure, leaving no room for ambiguity for the appointment of the working trustee, precludes in totality the claim of the petitioners that succession on the post of Mahant was hereditary in nature.

52. Therefore, in cumulative view of the foregoing observations, it is noted that the appointment on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji was never hereditary in nature and rather, was regulated and administered by the State.

Issue No. 3 Whether the disputed properties belong to Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi (public property-State) or are they the personal properties of the Mahant?

53. Prior to the determination of the ownership of the disputed properties, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the following provisions, namely:-

(I) Section 2(17) of the Act of 1959 (17) "trustee" means a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager;

(II) Section 2(18) of the Act of 1959 (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (68 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] (18) "working trustee" means any person who, for the time being, either alone or in association with some other person or persons, administers the trust property of any public trust and includes the manager of a public trust as well as-

(a) in the case of a math, the head of such math, and

(b) in the case of a public trust having its principal office or principal place of business outside the State of Rajasthan, the person in charge of the management of the property and administration of the public trust in that State;

(III) Section 17(1) of the Act of 1959

17. Registration of Public Trusts-

(1) Within two years from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust.

(2) .......

(3) ......

54. Upon a perusal of the voluminous record before this Court and after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, it becomes glaringly evident that the 'working trustee', who in the facts of the present case, happens to the Mahant i.e. Shri Ramodaracharya, applied under Section 17 of the Act of 1959 for the registration of the Thikana Galta Ji Public Trust and along with the said application, enclosed a list of properties belonging to the trust. However, upon further circumspection, the said list appears to be ambiguous/vague, as the same did not draw any distinction or expressly differentiate between the properties so belonging to the trust of Thikana Galta Ji and the Mahant, in his personal (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (69 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] capacity. Rather, said list was amiss of the disputed properties i.e. 35 shops, 2 thaddis and 1 nohra.

55. In this regard, it is noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners, whilst claiming that the properties enumerated in the application dated 25.10.1962 were the personal properties of the then Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya, as they were gifted to him over time by different rulers, has failed to adduce any substantial evidence in support of his claim. No substantial proof was furnished by the petitioners as to the fact that how the disputed properties, which include 35 shops, 2 thaddis and 1 nohra, came to be owned by the Mahant in his personal capacity. Moreover, to substantiate upon the claimed ownership through gifts by different rulers, no gift deed in favour of the Mahant by the erstwhile rulers, was placed on record.

56. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the order dated 01.05.1943, passed by the High Court of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, which categorically held that the said properties, including the 35 shops, 2 thaddis and 1 nohra belonged to the Galta Gaddi/Thikana Galta. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that the said judgment of the High Court was passed on 01.05.1943 whereas, Shri Ramodaracharya i.e. father of the present Mahant, was appointed as Mahant on 09.06.1943 i.e. only subsequent to the ascertainment by the High Court regarding the ownership of the said properties by Thikana Galta Ji. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that at the time of the appointment of Shri Ramodaracharya as the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi, the disputed properties including the 35 (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (70 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] shops, 2 thaddis and 1 nohra were owned by Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi.

57. Upon a further perusal of the record, more specifically Annexures R-2/5, R-2/6, R-2/7, R-2/8, R-2/9, R-2/10 and R-2/11 (in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016), it becomes evident that at the time of the appointment of Shri Ramodaracharya as the Mahant of the Galta Gaddi, he did not possess any suo moto powers. Moreover, even to secure the rudimentary and basic right to perform seva pooja, Shri Ramodaracharya had to write repeated request letters to the erstwhile State of Jaipur. Therefore, under any circumstance, it cannot be accepted that the Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya had the right to alienate and/or transfer the properties belonging to Thikana Galta Ji to either himself or any other third party.

58. Furthermore, the factum of the disputed properties consistently remaining within the ownership of Thikana Galta Ji and not the Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya, is also corroborated by the fact that vide notifications dated 27.04.1981 and 25.06.1981, the properties belonging to Thikana Galta Ji were included in the 'Rajkiya Supurdegi Shreni'.

59. Even otherwise, it is noted that as per Chapter II, Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Fund Service Rules, 1959, which encapsulate the service rules relating to the staff or self-supporting (funded) court of wards temples under the control and superintendence of the Devasthan Department Rajasthan, a Mahant is defined as the spiritual head of the temple of the institution, who is responsible for the management of the estate in a proper manner, including (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (71 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] the vital engagement of ensuring that the income emanating from and/or generated through the said temple of the institution, is utilized only for the purpose of worship of the deity/idol or maintenance and upkeep of the temple or the institution. The very definition of Mahant prescribes upon the office holder the limited role of managing the estate, on behalf of and for the idol, leaving no room for ambiguity, which may enable the Mahant to look towards enriching their own pockets. Correspondingly, the Mahant can be stated to be the manager/caretaker of the idol of Thikana Galta Ji, who is a perpetual minor.

60. In support of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in the celebrated judgment of Ram Janmabhoomi (Supra), reproduced herein-under:-

"108. The Hindu practice of dedicating properties to temples and idols had to be adjudicated upon by courts for the first time in the late nineteenth century. The doctrine that Hindu idols possess a distinct legal personality was adopted by English judges in India faced with the task of applying Hindu law to religious endowments. Property disputes arose and fuelled questions about the ownership of the properties. Two clear interests were recognised as subjects of legal protection. First, there existed the real possibility of maladministration by the shebaits (i.e. managers) where land endowed for a particular pious purpose, ordinarily to the worship of an idol, was poorly administered or even alienated. Second, where the land was dedicated to public worship, there existed the threat that access or other religious benefits would be denied to the public, in particular to the devotees. Where the original founder of the endowment was not alive and the shebait was not the owner of the lands, how were the courts (and through them the State) to give effect to the original dedication? To provide courts with a conceptual (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (72 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] framework within which they could analyse and practically adjudicate upon disputes involving competing claims over endowed properties, courts recognised the legal personality of the Hindu idol. It was a legal innovation necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by considerations of convenience. It had the added advantage of conferring legal personality on an object that within Hinduism had long been subject to personification. The exact contours of the legal personality so conferred are of relevance to the present case to which this judgment now adverts.

115. A Hindu may make an endowment for a religious purpose. There is a public interest in protecting the properties endowed and ensuring that the original pious purpose of the dedicator is fulfilled. The law confers legal personality on this pious purpose. However, as Chief Justice B K Mukherjea notes, it is the idol, as the material manifestation of the juristic person which is "looked upon" as the centre in which the property vests. The idol as an embodiment of a pious or benevolent purpose is recognised by the law as a juristic entity. The state will therefore protect property which stands vested in the idol even absent the establishment of a specific or express trust. The pious purpose, or 'benevolent idea' is elevated to the status of a juristic person and the idol forms the material expression of the pious purpose through which legal relations are affected. It is the pious purpose at the heart of the dedication which is the basis of conferring legal personality on the idol and which is the subject of rights and duties. The need to confer juristic personality arises out of the need for legal certainty as to who owns the dedicated property, as well as the need to protect the original intention of the dedicator and the future interests of the devotees. It was open for courts to even confer the personality on the community of devotees in certain situations, but the idol is chosen as a centre for legal relations as the physical manifestation of the pious purpose.

322. Courts recognise a Hindu idol as the material embodiment of a testator's pious purpose. Juristic (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (73 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] personality can also be conferred on a Swayambhu deity which is a self-manifestation in nature. An idol is a juristic person in which title to the endowed property vests. The idol does not enjoy possession of the property in the same manner as do natural persons. The property vests in the idol only in an ideal sense. The idol must act through some human agency which will manage its properties, arrange for the performance of ceremonies associated with worship and take steps to protect the endowment, inter alia by bringing proceedings on behalf of the idol. The shebait is the human person who discharges this role.

324. An early decision was rendered by the Privy Council in Posunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand. A suit was instituted by the shebaits of an idol against their immediate predecessor to set aside two execution decrees directing the sale of the property. Analysing whether the actions of a shebait binds subsequent shebaits, the Privy Council, speaking through Justice ME Smith held:

It would seem to follow that the person so entrusted must, of necessity, be empowered to do whatever may be required for the service of the idol and for the benefit and preservation of its property, at least to as great a degree as the manager of an infant heir. If this were not so, the estate of the idol might be destroyed or wasted, and its worship discontinued for want of necessary funds to preserve and maintain them.

The Privy Council summarised in the above extract the true function and purpose underlying the concept of a shebait. Since, the dedicated property vests in an idol in an ideal sense, the shebait is entrusted with its management. An idol cannot personally take actions required for the benefit and preservation of its property. The idol must necessarily act through a human agent and it is for this reason that the manager of the idol is conferred by law with the status of a shebait. The law recognises the legal personality of the idol to facilitate the protection of the rights and (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (74 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] the duties owed to the idol. The natural personality of the shebait is the human agency through which the needs and concerns of the idol are fulfilled.

326. The recognition of a person or a group of persons as shebaits is a substantive conferment of the right to manage the affairs of the deity. A necessary adjunct of the status of a shebait, is the right to brings actions on the behalf of an idol and bind it and its properties to the outcomes. The purpose for which legal personality is conferred upon an idol as the material embodiment of the pious purpose is protected and realised through the actions of the human agent, that is the shebait. The shebait is entrusted with the power and the duty to carry out the purpose of the donor in respect of the idol and its properties. In the vast majority of cases, a shebait is appointed in accordance with the terms of a deed of dedication by which property is endowed to an idol. It is for the protection of this property that the law recognises either the donor or a person named in the deed of endowment as the shebait. In the absence of an expressly appointed or identified shebait, the law has ensured the protection of the properties of the idol by the recognition of a de facto shebait. Where a person is in complete and continuous management of the deity's affairs coupled with long, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the appurtenant property, such a person may be recognised as a shebait despite the absence of a legal title to the rights of a shebait. This will be adverted to in the course of the judgment.

329. These observations affirm that the position of a shebait is distinct from that of a trustee in English law. The dedicated property legally vests in the idol in an ideal sense and not in the shebait. A shebait does not bring an action for the recovery of the property in a personal capacity but on behalf of the idol for the protection of the idol's dedicated property. Ordinarily, a deed of dedication will not contain a provision for the duties of the shebait. However, an express stipulation or even its absence does not mean that the property of the idol vests in the shebait. Though the property does not legally vest in the shebait, the shebait may (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (75 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] have some interest in the usufruct generated from it.

Appurtenant to the duties of a shebait, this interest is reflected in the nature of the office of a shebait."

61. Whilst placing cumulative reliance upon the aforesaid, it can be safely deduced that the primary duty of the Mahant (shebait) of a public trust is to perform seva pooja of the distinct perpetual minor, which is the idol of Thikana Galta Ji and also, manage the affairs of the said perpetual minor. Any endowment, be it in the form of money or property, belongs to the idol, of which the Mahant is the mere manager. Therefore, the property belonging to the idol, can in no manner whatsoever be usurped or treated to be the property of the Mahant, as the latter is entrusted with the responsibility to protect the former's property and manage the affairs and/or administration of the temple only. Therefore, in any circumstance, the Mahant cannot part with the properties vested in the idol, in his own favour. In this regard, on the aspect of the idol being a perpetual minor, reliance can also be placed upon the dictum enunciated in Rampratap and Anr. vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in (1993) SCC Online (Raj.) 238, wherein it was held that a deity of the temple is a perpetual minor and the land belonging to the deity shall remain 'khudkasht' land, even if it is cultivated any other person.

62. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the ownership of the disputed properties before the Court was ascertained by the erstwhile High Court of the State of Jaipur vide order dated 01.05.1943 to be in favour of the idol i.e. Thikana Galta Ji, then in such an eventuality, Shri Ramodaracharya, subsequent to his appointment as Mahant on 09.06.1943, could (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (76 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] not have alienated with and/or parted ways with the said disputed properties which were legally vested in the idol i.e. Thikana Galta Ji. As a result, it can be stated that the disputed properties before this Court belong to the idol i.e. Thikana Galta Ji, of which the State is the guardian on account of the idol being a perpetual minor, and the Mahant-the mere manager and caretaker.

63. Furthermore, this Court also deems it appropriate to hold that any alienation by the Mahant, of a property vested with the idol i.e. Thikana Galta Ji, shall not only be an act in excess of their authority but also one, which shall for all intents and purposes, hold accountable the Mahant as a trespasser. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following extract from the celebrated judgment of Ram Janmabhoomi (Supra):-

"369. In his separate opinion, Justice Viswanatha Sastri clarified the grounds of challenge to the exercise of the power of management by a de facto shebait in the following terms:

"...If a de facto trustee is guilty of any breach of trust, he can be removed like a de jure trustee. The law fixes him with the responsibility for the proper administration of the trust and also gives him the power to act on behalf of and in the interests of the trust, until a lawful trustee emerges... A person who asserts his own title to the property of a religious endowment, who does not sue as a trustee or manager of the endowment and who claims to recover the property for himself and not for the trust, can never be allowed to sue as a de facto trustee. He is entirely in the position of a trespasser so far as the trust is concerned and cannot be considered to be one who has taken upon himself the duties and obligations of a trustee."

Consistent with the jurisprudence on the rights of a shebait with respect to the properties of an (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (77 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] endowment, a de facto shebait is entrusted with the power and the duty to carry out the purpose of the debutter in respect of the idol and its properties. Though the shebait may have an interest in the usufruct of the debutter property, the de facto shebait is not vested with an independent right of title over the debutter property. Thus, where a de facto shebait raises an independent claim to the debutter property to the idol, it assumes the position of a trespasser and no action at its behest is maintainable. A claim raised by a shebait adverse to the idol defeats the very purpose for which shebaits are vested with the right to manage the idol and its properties.

372. A de facto shebait is vested with the right to manage the debutter property and bring actions on behalf of the idol. A bona fide action for the benefit of the idol binds it and its properties. As compared to a de jure shebait whose rights can legally be traced to a deed of endowment, a de facto shebait is vested with the right by mere possession and exercise of management rights. The protection of the idol's properties is at the heart of this extraordinary conferral of rights. If courts were to adopt a standard that is easily satisfied, large tracts of debutter property may be left at the mercy of persons claiming to be in possession of and managing such properties. It is the duty of the court in every case to assess whether there has been not just exclusive possession but a continuous and uninterrupted exercise of all management rights which are recognised by the beneficiaries of the trust property before conferring on a person a right to which they have no legal title."

64. Moreover, considering the scheme of the Act of 1959 and more specifically Section 2(18) read with Section 17(1), it becomes glaringly evident that the 'working trustee' is responsible for applying for registration of the public trust, a role which in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was assumed by Shri Ramodaracharya. Therefore, it can be deduced that Shri (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (78 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Ramodaracharya acted as a 'working trustee' at the time of registration of the Thikana Galta Ji Trust, whose rights as per Section 2(18) regardless are very limited to the mere role of management, as compared to the rights of a 'trustee' defined under Section 2(17). A trustee is a person who acts on a permanent basis, in favour of whom the property may vest as well. However, no such conferment of property is envisioned in favour of a 'working trustee'. Therefore, above and beyond the impermissibility of alienating with property which vests in the idol i.e. Thikana Galta Ji, the Mahant could not hold an interest in the said property, whilst having assumed the role of a mere 'working trustee'.

65. At this juncture, this Court also deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act 1882, more specifically Sections 3 and 7, which for the sake of convenience, are reproduced herein-under:-

"Section 3: Interpretation Clause "trust".--A "trust" is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner:

"author of the trust": "trustee": "beneficiary": "trust- property": "beneficial interest": "instrument of trust".--The person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the "author of the trust". The person who accepts the confidence is called the "trustee": the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called the "beneficiary": the subject- matter of the trust is called "trust-property" or "trust- money" : the "beneficial interest" or "interest" of the beneficiary is his right against the trustee as owner of the trust-properly; and the instrument, if any, by (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (79 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] which the trust is declared is called the 'instrument of trust":

"breach of trust".--A breach of any duty imposed on a trustee, as such, by any law for the time being in force, is called a "breach of trust".

"registered", "notice", expressions defined in Act 9 of 1872.-- And in this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject of context, "registered"

means registered under the law for the registration of documents for the time being in force a person is said to have "notice" of a fact either when he actually knows that fact or when, but for willful abstention from inquiry or gross negligence, he would have known it, or when information of the fact is given to or obtained by his agent, under the circumstances mentioned in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 229; and all expressions used herein and defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, shall be deemed to have the meanings respectively attributed to them by that Act."

"Section 7: Who may create trusts:

A trust may be created--

(a) by every person competent to contract, and

(b) with the permission of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, by or on behalf of a minor, but subject in each case to the law for the time being in force as to the circumstances and extent in and to which the author of the trust may dispose of the trust-property."

66. While placing reliance upon the aforementioned provisions, this Court is of the opinion that the concept of trust implies confidence in matters related to the ownership of property and the same confidence is reposed upon its trustee, in favour of the beneficiary. The property belonging to the trust is connoted as trust property. Thus, the working trustees have to ensure that the trust property is kept intact, in accordance with the aims and (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (80 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] objectives of the trust, in favour of its beneficiaries. The provisions of Section 7 categorically specify that the trust created by or on behalf of a minor, which in the present is the idol of Thikana Galta Ji, shall be under the guardianship of the State. Hence, seeking the permission of a civil court is mandatory prior to alienating with and/or mortgaging any properties belonging to the idol of Thikana Galta Ji. The action of the present petitioners and the erstwhile Mahant Shri Ramodharacharya, insofar as they have alienated with the properties of the trust, by concealing them at the time of registration of trust under Section 17 of the Act of 1959 and claiming the same to be the personal properties of the Mahant, is in itself a faux pas.

67. Culminating the foregoing observations, it is deduced that the disputed properties, which include 35 shops, 1 nohra and 2 thaddies, explicitly vest with the idol of Thikana Galta Ji, of whom the State of Rajasthan is the guardian as per Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act for the following reasons, namely:-

67.1 That the petitioners categorically failed to adduce any evidence on record, such as a gift deed amongst others, to elaborate upon the contention that the said properties were gifted to the erstwhile Mahant by various rulers.

67.2 That vide gazette notifications dated 27.04.1981 and 25.06.1981, the properties prior registered as 'properties belonging to the Trust' were included in the 'Rashtriya Supurdegi Shreni', which could only be done when the State has overriding powers.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (81 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 67.3 That the property belonging to the idol, can in no manner whatsoever be usurped or treated to be the property of the Mahant, as the latter is entrusted with the responsibility to protect the former's property and manage the affairs and/or administration of the temple only, such as doing the seva pooja. Therefore, in any circumstance, the Mahant cannot part with the properties vested in the minor idol, under the guardianship of the State.

Ancillary Issues Issue No. 4 Whether the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji, subsequent to the Year 1943, can be assumed to be a Jagirdar?

68. In furtherance of the categoric and primary observations made herein-above vide Issue Nos. 1- 3, this Court deems it appropriate to delve into the secondary aspect of this Court's observations, which shall be ancillary to the findings noted above.

69. On the aspect of assumption of Thikana Galta Ji as a Jagir, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter, Act of 1952) came into force on 13.02.1952. The then Mahant of the Galta Gaddi submitted two lists before the Jagir Commissioner, wherein one list categorically mentioned the properties belonging to the Galta Ji temple, whereas the other included his personal properties. Subsequently, when the Act of 1959 came into force, Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya filed an application under Section 17 of the Act of 1959 on 26.04.1963 for registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a public trust, which was amiss of the disputed properties. (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (82 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Subsequently, Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya on 26.11.1969 applied before the Jagir Commissioner, praying that the properties mentioned in the application dated 25.10.1962 i.e. disputed properties (Annexure 15 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2016) be declared as his personal properties.

70. In this background, learned counsel contended that due to the pendency of the said application before the Jagir Commissioner, the petitioners were barred from approaching any other court/authority. Additionally, it was stressed that the said properties enumerated in the application dated 25.10.1962 were the personal properties of the then Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya, as they were gifted to him over time, by different rulers.

71. However, upon a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that Shri Ramodaracharya was appointed as a Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji vide appointment letter dated 09.06.1943, under the seal of the erstwhile State of Jaipur. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that during the course of arguments and/or by way of the pleadings, no documents/evidence was adduced by the petitioners in support of their claim regarding Shri Ramodaracharya having been declared as the Jagirdar. Having said that, it is reflected that Shri Ramodaracharya attempted to get registered certain properties as his personal properties in the record of the Commissioner Jagirdar in the Year 1969, but the said action came to be rejected by the Board of Revenue.

72. Therefore, placing reliance upon Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that as the petitioners wished for this Court to rule on the purported (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (83 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] assumption of Thikana Galta Ji as a Jagir and the Mahant as Jagirdar, the petitioners ought to have adduced evidence exhibiting such assumption, be it by way of the certificate granted by the Jagirdar Commissioner or otherwise. However, in the absence of any such evidence/certificate, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proof to claim the assumption of the Jagirdari rights qua the Mahant.

73. Furthermore, this Court also deems it appropriate to take note of the reports dated 02.12.1992 and 17.02.2004, which are duly undersigned by the fact finding authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, Devasthan Department respectively, which explicitly state that Thikana Galta Ji, has never been a Jagir of any Mahant, including late Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya.

74. Therefore, culminating the aforesaid, and considering that in the absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners in support of the claim of Jagirdari of Thikana Galta Ji, whether it be through a certificate of resumption of Jagir or otherwise, and read with the reports of the fact finding authority dated 02.12.1992 and 17.02.2004, it can be fairly deduced that Thikana Galta Ji has never been a Jagir and no Mahant a Jagirdar, including late Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya.

Issue No. 5 Whether the registration of Thikana Galta Ji as a Public Trust in the Year 1963 and the subsequent alteration of the (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (84 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] bylaws in the Year 1999, were in accordance with the due process of law?

75. As per the record before this Court, it is noted that subsequent to the passing of the order dated 19.02.1996 which set aside the order dated 27.01.1981 cancelling the registration of the Galta Gaddi as a Public Trust, Shri Ramodaracharya altered the bylaws and the rules and regulations governing the administrative control of the Thikana Galta Ji Public Trust in the Year 1999. Thereafter, Shri Ramodaracharya appointed himself as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Thikana Galta Ji. Afterwards, he inculcated his son and other members of the family as members of the Trust and thereafter, nominated them as trustees. In cumulative effect, Shri Ramodaracharya altered the mode of succession to the post of Mahant, from merits to hereditary, which confined further succession within the members of his family, who were nominated as trustees.

76. In this background, it is noted that while dealing with the primary issues stated above, this Court has already affirmed the factum of the mode of succession to the seat of Mahant to not be hereditary in nature.

77. Howsoever, prior to specifically dealing with the aspect of registration of the public trust in the Year 1963 and the alteration/amendment of its bylaws in the Year 1999 and the legality of such alterations/amendments, this Court deems it appropriate to briefly take note of the following provisions of the Act of 1959, noted herein-under:-

(I) Section 23 of the Act of 1959 (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (85 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] "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. (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 the therefrom, in accordance with the decision of the Commissioner on such appeal and the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 shall apply to such amended entries as they apply to the original entries."

(II) Section 24 of the Act of 1959 "If, at any time after the entries or amended entries are made in the register under Section 21 or Section 23, it appears to the Assistant Commissioner that any particular relating to any public trust, which was not the subject matter of the inquiry under Section 18 or Sub-section (2) of Section 23, as the case may be, has remained to be inquired into, the Assistant Commissioner may (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (86 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] make further inquiry in the prescribed manner, record his findings and make or amend entries in the register in accordance with the decision arrived at, and the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 shall, so far as may be, apply to the inquiry, the recording of findings and the making or amending of the entries in the register under this section."

(III) Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Rules 1962 "21. Manner of Public notice for proposed inquiry.--

1. The Assistant Commissioner shall give a public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) of section 18 in Form 7 to:

(a) the parties to the inquiry;

(b) the Trustee of the trust.

2. A copy of such notice shall be published by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner and in the locality on a conspicuous place, where the trust property in question is situated. Such publication be deemed to be sufficient intimation to persons having any interest in the trust property.

3. Where the trust property is situated in a city or in more than one district, a copy of the notice shall also be published in a newspaper having circulation in the locality or in the Rajasthan Gazette."

(iv) Section 41 of the Act of 1959 "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 the leave of the Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner or other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf or leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad.

(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 accepts a position which is inconsistent with 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 the 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 person having interest in the trust to apply to the Court for the appointment of a 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 to do so, he shall himself make the application.

78. Placing reliance upon the foregoing provisions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the amendments to the bylaws effectuated in the Year 1999, were not in accordance with the due process of law, for the following reasons, namely:-

78.1 That as per Section 23(1) of the Act of 1959, the 'working trustee' is mandated to report any change occurred in the entries of record to the Assistant Commissioner, within a period of 90 days, from the date of said change. Thereafter, Section 23(2) confers power upon the Assistant Commissioner (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (88 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] to hold an enquiry to verify the correctness of such entries, pursuant to which, if the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied regarding the changes occurred and their corresponding necessity, he/she shall record such amended entries in the register, and henceforth, provisions of Section 21 and 22 shall become applicable upon such entries. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, whilst amending the bylaws in the Year 1999, the 'working trustee'/Mahant failed to effectuate compliance with the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act of 1959, insofar as no changes/amendments in the rules and regulations of the administration of the Thikana Galta Ji Public Trust were notified to the Assistant Commissioner. On account of such failure, the Assistant Commissioner could also not verify the necessity and/or correctness of such entries, making the exercise a nullity steeped in illegality.

78.2 That in furtherance of the said omission on part of the Mahant to notify the Assistant Commissioner regarding the amendments, the former failed to comply with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1959 as well, which mandate the conduct of further inquiry into those particulars, which did not constitute part of the erstwhile inquiry at the time of registration of the public trust under Section 18. In the absence of the Assistant Commissioner having been notified of the proposed amendments, such inquiry to ascertain the necessity and/or correctness of the amended entries, as per the scheme and object of the public trust, could not be conducted, thereby making such amendments unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (89 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 78.3 That the amendments effectuated by the Mahant, also escaped the scrutiny of the "persons having interest", as the omission of notifying the Assistant Commissioner regarding such amendments, had the consequent effect of non-furnishing of a notice for inquiry in the newspaper, as mandated by Rule 21(3) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962.

79. That in cumulative view of the aforesaid, it is held that the said amended bylaws of the Year 1999 do not create an estoppel in continuing the practice of appointment of Mahant by the State, as opposed to the hereditary succession, for the simple reason that the amendments to the bylaws are steeped in illegality, having been effectuated without the due authority of law.

80. Furthermore, it is also noted that pursuant to the demise of the erstwhile 'working trustee' i.e. Shri Ramodaracharya, an application under Section 41 ought to have been filed for the appointment of the new 'working trustee', subject to due inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner. The mere non-compliance of the said provision, made a mockery of the required inquiry and as a result, the dispute spill over its intended circumference, including the changes so effectuated in the bylaws in the Year 1999 by the new 'working trustee', whose position on the said post of 'working trustee', was in itself not scrutinised as per Section 41, thereby nullifying the appointment in-toto along with any actions taken whilst being on the said post, which include the amendments of the Year 1999.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (90 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

81. For the sake of clarity, relying upon the aforesaid, it is reiterated that the alterations in the bylaws were effectuated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1959 i.e. no inquiry was conducted by the competent authority i.e. Devasthan Department and no objections were invited from "persons with interest" on account of non-publication of any notice in any newspaper, despite being an admitted fact that Thikana Galta Ji has properties situated in more than one district.

82. As a result, the alteration in the bylaws, as effectuated in the Year 1999, are declared to be void ab initio, as the same came to fruition with malafide intentions to alter the custom of appointment of Mahant by the State. Moreover, the said amendments were effectuated bypassing the settled position of law as discussed above, and concealing material facts and circumstances.

Issue No. 6 Whether there was any mismanagement, concealment and fraud committed by the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi?

83. In order to ascertain whether there was any mismanagement, concealment and fraud committed by the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the fact that against the actions of the Mahant in opening a Pvt. Ltd. Company i.e. Gayatri Build Estate amongst others, Shri Uma Shankar moved an application (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (91 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] before the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 24, 41, 48 and 49 of the Act of 1959, complaints were registered before the Assistant Commissioner numbering 01/2006 and 01/2007. Resultantly, the petitioners as well as respondents before this Court, preferred various petitions including PILs, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2010, whilst relegating the issues for determination before the fact finding authority i.e. Devasthan Department, for want of alternate remedy.

84. Upon a perusal of the record before this Court and also, the very pleadings of the petitioners, this Court cannot help but deduce the interplay of concealment, mismanagement and fraud on part of Shri Awdeshacharya, for the following reasons:-

84.1 That Shri Awdeshacharya got the amended bylaws of the Year 1999 registered, without following the due process of law (as discussed above) and subsequently, established a Pvt.

Ltd. Company, namely Gayatri Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Mrs. Gayatri being the wedded spouse of Shri Awdeshacharya s/o Shri Ramodaracharya), with only his family members as its shareholders.

84.2 That the Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Articles of Association (AoA) of the said company categorically stated that the company shall run the business of running guest houses, bars, pubs, casinos and restaurants within the premises of the properties belonging to the Thikana Galta Ji, and shall (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (92 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] serve all kinds of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food (Annexure-9 in S.B. CWP No. 16511/2016).

84.3. That the acts and services of serving alcohol and non-vegetarian food, with an intent to enrich the own pockets of the shareholders of the said company, being the family of the Mahant Shri Awdeshacharya, exhibit blatant disregard towards the aim and object of the Thikana Galta Ji Trust, of which such properties, as noted above, form part of. The said Trust was specifically birthed with the aims and objects of safeguarding the idol of Thikana Galta Ji and nurturing the Galtapeeth as a holy site for the followers of the Hindu faith, who treated the same to be a pilgrimage. The noted MoA and AoA of Gayatri Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. go against the objective with which the said Trust was created and also, violates the sentiments attracted by the idol of Thikana Galta Ji. It goes without saying that such a company, regardless of the noted observations, was formed to run business on properties, which in the first place, did not belong to the Mahant in his personal capacity, thereby nullifying the entire exercise as fraud at the very threshold. 84.4 That the pleadings of the petitioners, that as soon as the complaints came to be filed against the said constitution of Gayatri Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. and its MoA and AoA, the same were retracted/deleted in the Year 2007 itself, are in the nature of an admission, which goes on to reflect the intent of the shareholders of the said company i.e. Shri Awdeshacharya, to undertake business within the properties belonging to Thikana Galta Ji for enriching his own personal treasury, whilst having no regard to the (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (93 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] sentiment attracted by the owner of the said properties in whom the properties vest i.e. idol, and its beneficiaries i.e. followers of said idol.

85. Taking cumulative factors into account, the interplay of fraud and misrepresentation can safely be deduced on part of the petitioners, for the following reasons:-

(i) On account of mis-conduct, erstwhile working trustee was removed/terminated. Thereafter, as per selection made by the State, Shri Ramodaracharya was appointed with a limited right of seva puja and no other right. Inspite of the same, he claimed the property to be private, thereby alienating and/or siphoning out certain properties, as well as bhog, chadava, without obtaining any consent of the State.

(ii) Application for registration of public trust under the Act of 1959 was done without any publication in the newspaper as required under Rule 21(3) as trust was having multiple places of worship in the State. No enquiry qua the factors and the provisions under Section 17 was carried out.

(iii) By creating a private limited company to run a hotel in the sacred premises of Galta Peeth, there was a breach of faith and trust, qua the beneficiaries and public at large.

(iv) The alteration in the bylaws and making trust as a family trust and heredity succession was done without following provisions of Section 23 and Section 41. Even the Devasthan Authorities being hand in glove or for the reasons best known to them, neither inquired under the provisions of Section 23 and Section 41, nor referred the matter to the Court for appropriate inquiry.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (94 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

86. In light of the of the same, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors.:(1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court is of the view that the principle of "finality of litigation" and plea of res judicata cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. A person, whose cased is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. Issue No. 7 Whether Thikana Galta Ji can be classified as a math or not?

87. Lastly, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioners that Thikana Galta Ji constituted a math and therefore, only those persons who were the disciples of the said math could be classified as "persons having interest" as per Section 2(9)(b) of the Act of 1959, for the purpose of raising objections/filing complaints before the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be countenanced for the following reasons, namely:-

87.1 The basic tenets of evidence law mandate the party asserting a fact to prove the existence of the same.

87.2 Therefore, as the petitioners wished for this Court to rule on the non-maintenance of objections/complaints raised by the respondents-herein before the Assistant Commissioner, on account of the latter not qualifying as "persons with interest" as per Section 2(9)(b), the petitioners ought to have adduced (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (95 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] evidence exhibiting the fact that Thikana Galta Ji, was indeed a math. No single document was exhibited by the petitioners in this regard. Moreover. Resolution 9 dated 03.10.1939 is also silent on the aspect of Thikana Galta Ji being a math. Moreover, even the documents filed for registration of the Thikana Galta Ji as a trust coupled with its bylaws, are also silent on the aspect of Thikana Galta Ji constituting a math.

87.3 Hence, in the absence of any such evidence, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proof to claim that Thikana Galta Ji constituted a math, as a consequence of which, the plea against the maintainability of objections/complaints by the respondents-herein, is also turned down.

88. At this juncture, it is noted that judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their various contentions, shall not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the following reasons, over and above those mentioned above, namely:-

88.1 That the dictum enunciated in Abdul Kareem Khan (Supra) and Gheesu Das (Supra) fails to substantiate upon the challenge raised against the locus standi of the respondents to initiate proceedings before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, especially in light of the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959 and also, the consent drawn by Mr. Bajwa, the then counsel for the petitioners-herein, regarding the participation of the respondents in the proceedings before the Devasthan Department.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (96 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] 88.2 That the dictum enunciated in Mahant Balak (Supra), Channamalikarjun (Supra) and Aayas Mangalnath (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the simple reason that the changes so effectuated in the bylaws in the Year 1999 by the new Mahant/'working trustee', whose position on the said post of 'working trustee', was in itself not scrutinised as per Section 41, nullified the appointment in-toto along with any actions taken whilst being on the said post, which include the amendments of the Year 1999.

88.3 That the dictum enunciated in Guru Padayya (Supra) is distinguishable on facts, especially for the reason that the scope of inquiry under Section 24 shall be the secondary aspect of consideration, which was never arrived at in the first instance, on account of the fact that the amended entries were not notified to the Assistant Commissioner in the first place, thereby making the said argument regarding scope of inquiry, premature.

Part H: Ancillary Remarks

89. One amongst the myriad of takeaways from the dispute before this Court, is the great deal of public sentiment and religious confidence attracted by Thikana Galta Ji. A watchful eye of the respondents before this Court, has not only kept the actions of those entrusted with the welfare and management of the public trust of Thikana Galta Ji under check, but also raised alarms, at every site of a perceived injustice towards the aims and objectives of the public trust, which is to cater to the deity/idol of Thikana Galta Ji, through a human agency.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (97 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

90. The very recognition of the idol as a distinct legal identity, is intrinsically linked to the historical framework within which endowments in favour of an idol were largely prevalent. The said recognition ensured that the endowments were effectively utilized for their intended purpose, by honoring the wishes of the donor, which sought to ensure the continued, unhindered and constant welfare of the idol, on which the religious and spiritual confidence of the donors rested.

91. In the Hindu faith, each idol represents a specific deity and serves as a means to connect with the divine. The rituals associated with these idols involve offering prayers, lighting incense and performing devotional chants. It is believed that the idols embody the divine essence of the deities they represent, acting as a physical manifestation of their presence. The devotees seek blessings, guidance, and protection from said idols, fostering a deep sense of faith and spirituality.

92. Therefore, the purpose of endowments given by donors rests upon the assumed belief that the said endowments, whether monetary or otherwise, shall strictly be used in a manner which caters to the idol, which in the present case is Thikana Galta Ji. In addition to endowments, the Thikana Galta Ji Trust also generates revenue through various other modes such as ticketing of visitors, which is also required to be used for the welfare of the deity's idol. Such endowments and revenue, can in no manner whatsoever be permitted to leap over the welfare centered around the deity, to also cater to the other entities/human agencies, tasked with looking after the idol.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (98 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

93. The key takeaway from the foregoing discussion being, the utilization of endowments of donors and the revenue so generated by the Galtapeeth, for the complete and comprehensive welfare of the idol and the properties vested in the idol, by its caretakers having human agency, so that the honor of the idol is maintained and its followers continue to seek blessings for their own religious and spiritual perquisites, without any hardship.

94. In this background, it is noted that during the course of hearing, this Court vide order dated 10.07.2023, appointed Mr. Ayush Singh, as the Court Commissioner to furnish a detailed report regarding the property in dispute i.e. Galtapeeth/Thikana Galta Ji, for the comprehensive assistance of this Court. The said report was to be prepared with regards to the daily functions and operations of Thikana Galta Ji, their corresponding mode of worship, source of income and also, the physical state/maintenance of the property.

95. Mr. Ayush Singh apprised this Court regarding the details of the physical inspection so carried out, stating that Thikana Galta Ji is situated in a vast area of land surrounded by hills. However, despite the revenue generation by the public trust through ticketing and endowments as received from donors, the physical state of said properties of the trust is in a deplorable and run- down condition.

96. Moreover, by way of the photographs annexed with the Commissioner's Report, it is reflected that the kund situated within the temple premises, where devotees come to bathe in the holy (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (99 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] water, is maintained in a condition that slips up on the aspect of hygiene and cleanliness. The infrastructure around the temple properties seems to be failing whilst being unable to cope with the times. New buildings are being constructed, without a whisper of maintenance towards those that have aged over the years.

96. Therefore, the questions which begs an answer before this Court, is why despite the receipt of endowments and revenue generation by way of entry fee, photography, rental income and parking charges (Re: Commissioner's Report), the upkeep of the properties of the idol of Thikana Galta Ji, is not being prioritized by the administration and management of the Trust, who being the human agency tasked with the welfare of the idol, ought to prioritize and cater to the interests of the idol, which attracts the religious and spiritual sentiments and faith of countless devotees.

97. At this juncture, it is also noted that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the State submitted that part of the properties of Thikana Galta Ji form part of the property falling under the protected forests and the archeological sites therein, are also recognized as protective monuments by the Archeological Survey of India, on account of the said properties being gifted with aesthetic frescos and heritage structures.

98. Therefore, taking note of the foregoing observations, especially those catering to the deplorable condition of the properties of Thikana Galta Ji, despite the receipt of sufficient endowments and revenue generation, especially when the said idol of Thikana Galta Ji attracts large-scale religious and sentiments of its follower, this Court deems it appropriate to direct (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (100 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] the State of Rajasthan, which is the guardian of the idol of Thikana Galta Ji (perpetual minor), to look after the welfare, development and regular upkeep of the properties belonging to Thikana Galta Ji, on a similar pattern, as that which is followed at Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain and Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya.

Part I: Conclusion

99. In conclusion, this Court takes it upon itself to reiterate the following key takeaways:-

(i) That succession on the post of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji is not hereditary in nature. Rather, the power to select and appoint the Mahant, rests with the State i.e. State of Rajasthan.

(ii) That the ownership of the properties of Thikana Galta Ji is vested in the idol of Thikana Galta Ji itself. However, considering that the idol is a perpetual minor and the Mahant so appointed is a mere caretaker and manager-in-place for the service of the idol, the State who is the guardian of the said perpetual minor, shall exercise the due authority to administer the properties vested in the idol.

(iii) That the alienation of the disputed properties, as effectuated by the petitioner(s) whilst treating them to be personal properties of the Mahant, was dehors the settled position as well as provisions of law coupled with the State policy and therefore, the same is set aside.

(iv) That Thikana Galta Ji, since time immemorial, has continued to remain a Thikana/Public Trust and the same was never recognized as a math or Jagir under any Mahant.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (101 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Part J: Directions

100. At the beginning of this judgment, this Court acknowledged the salient history and culture of this country, which has been home to the quests for truth since time immemorial, whether it be through the material, the political or the spiritual. Now, whilst we conclude the foregoing discussion, this Court believes that the quest for truth, for Thikana Galta Ji and its rightful management and control, has come full circle as well. The quest for truth, through the material, established the custom and usage of the Galtapeeth; whereas, the quest for truth, through the spiritual, reminded us that each idol, for its devotees, serves as a means to connect with the divine.

101. To establish said connection, the idol has perpetually continued to receive endowments, be it by the erstwhile rulers in the form of immovable property or its astute devotees, which are the manifestation of the donors proclivity and religious beliefs. These endowments, by every stretch of their being, vest in the exclusive ownership of the idol. The only scope of human agency emerges in a managerial capacity through a Mahant, to cater to the interests of the idol, which remains to be a perpetual minor. In the relationship between the idol, which is the absolute and ultimate owner of its own properties and the Mahant, who is per se the former's manager, the State assumes the role of a guardian, who is entrusted with the fostering task of maintaining the equation of the relationship between the idol and the Mahant, and to also ensure that the latter does not act in excess of its authority.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (102 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

102. The State in the present case, has not only broken the contours of the trust which they embodied, but also by way of their omissions in effectuating due compliance of the statutory requirements of the Act of 1959, paved an unlawful and illegitimate way for the Mahant to breach the limits of its authority, and trespass upon the properties of the idol, of which the Mahant ought to have been the trusted manager. All this while, the State has not only made a mockery of the well- structured provisions of the Act of 1959, but also ridiculed the confidence of the devotees of Thikana Galta Ji, who seek blessings, guidance and protection from the idol, fostering a deep sense of faith and spirituality.

103. Therefore, the cost, which ought to be imposed upon the State for its blatant dereliction in duty, must take into consideration the consequences of its omissions in upholding the spirit of the Act of 1959 and the consequent turmoil which accrued in the management of Thikana Galta Ji, leaving its properties in a deplorable and run-down condition. Hence, for said omission, the guardian of the perpetual minor idol, which happens to be the State, must compensate for its dereliction in duties. Therefore, the State is directed to compensate for its unlawful omissions, by way of the restoration, renovation and development of the Galta Peeth corridor, in such a manner, that the same is brought to its original glory and majesty, continuing to be a pillar of grandeur and heritage. The said act be completed on a similar pattern as that followed in Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain and Ram Janmabhoomi in (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:26918] (103 of 104) [CW-16347/2016] Ayodhya which shall go on to meet out the sentiments of the devotees of Thikana Galta Ji.

104. Resultantly, in summation, the appointment of the petitioner- Shri Awdeshacharya, as Mahant, is declared to have been self- claimed, dehors the custom and usage of Thikana Galta Ji and also, the established position of law. The said act reeks of fraud and misrepresentation along with breach of faith, that the followers of Thikana Galta Ji continued to bestow in the sacred institution of their pilgrimage. As a result, the appointment of Shri Awdeshacharya as Mahant is set aside. Consequently, the State is directed to restore any loss, that has occurred to Thikana Galta Ji, as a direct consequence of the alienation and transfer of properties, effectuated by Shri Awdeshacharya, in the terms as noted above.

105. As a result, considering the whilom actions of Shri Awdeshacharya, whose appointment at the first instance coupled with the subsequent conduct, was not only contrary to the past practice, custom and settled position of law, but also illicit and illegal, Shri Awdeshacharya cannot be permitted to continue rendering services as the Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji and/or 'working trustee' of the corresponding Public Trust so constituted. Hence, appropriate actions be taken by the guardian-State of Rajasthan and competent authority-Devasthan Department, to do the needful in order to ensure the smooth functioning of Thikana Galta Ji henceforth.

106. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, for effective compliance.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:26918] (104 of 104) [CW-16347/2016]

107. As a result, in light of the foregoing observations and directions, the orders impugned dated 28.03.2013 and 10.11.2016, are maintained and/or upheld.

108. Accordingly, the instant batch of writ petitions stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/502-508 (Downloaded on 22/07/2024 at 09:09:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur