Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ram Mandir Dharmik Evam Parmarthik ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223
1 WP-23541-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23541 of 2018
SHRI RAM MANDIR DHARMIK EVAM PARMARTHIK TRUST THR.
MAHANT SHRI JANKI BALLABH DAS GURU SHRI BALKRISHN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Basanti Lal Pavecha, Senior Advocate with Shri Nitin Phadke,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Mudit Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and
11.
Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
- Cum - Registrar of Public Trust, Indore whereby he has directed the petitioner Trust to hand over possession of the Trust to a three member committee.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 2 WP-23541-2018
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a religious and charitable Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The petition was filed by the authorized trustee Mahant Shri Laxmandas Ji Maharaj upon whose death Janki Vallabhdas Guru Shri Balkishandas has been substituted. The Trust was constituted under a trust deed dated 17.08.1963 executed by Mahant Shri Shyamdas Guru Mahant Shri Vyankatdas. The primary objective of the Trust is to construct a permanent temple and to generate income for its construction and to maintain the temple of Bhagwan Shri Ramchandra Ji situated at Raghunath Tekri, Khatipura river side road, Indore. As per the trust deed, the Trust is controlled and managed by President and four trustees.
4. In the year 2002, a complaint was lodged with the Registrar of Public Trust, Indore alleging mismanagement of the Trust. By order dated 05.08.2002 the Registrar, Public Trust made a reference to the District Judge, Indore under Section 26 of the Act, 1951. By order dated 26.08.2004 the Civil Court i.e. the Fourth Additional District Judge issued certain directions in respect of management of the Trust. One of the direction was that a three member committee was constituted for the administration of the Trust property including the Sub Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner Trust preferred FA No.183/2007 before this Court which was decided by judgment dated 02.05.2013 with a direction to the Trust to function as per the Trust deed. The Registrar was also given a liberty to take action in accordance with law. During pendency of the First Appeal one of the trustees i.e. its President Shri Prahladdas Singhi resigned and Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 3 WP-23541-2018 Rajendradas Ji Maharaj and Mahant Mohandas Maharaj were appointed as trustees. On 15.04.2011 Manohardas, one of the trustees resigned from the Trust.
5. As per the petitioner, the temple was in need of renovation and the Indore Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 310 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 informing the Trust that a part of the building is in great danger to the public and the same should be removed. The petitioner Trust submitted an application for reconstruction of temple building along with map and eventually permission was granted by the Collector, District Indore to the Trust for reconstruction of the building on 16.09.2015. However while granting such permission the Collector again constituted a three member committee which included Sub Divisional Officer, Indore and Shri Manohar. Being aggrieved by the constitution of the three member committee the petitioner Trust preferred W.P. No.6972/2015 before this Court which was allowed by order dated 19.01.2017 and the order passed by the Collector to the extent a committee had been constituted to supervise the construction of the temple property was set aside. The Trust was permitted to proceed ahead with the renovation/construction of the temple keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under Act, 1951. It was held that the three member committee constituted by the Collector is a committee of strangers and their names do not find place in the Trust deed. The order passed by the District Judge on 26.08.2004 has come to an end and order dated 02.05.2013 passed in First Appeal No.183/2007 is in existence. The committee constituted on account of order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 4 WP-23541-2018 26.08.2004 is not in existence. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.04.2017 passed in W.A. No.186/2017.
6. Thereafter an application was filed by one Shri Raju Hoplal Parmar and five others before the Registrar, Public Trust alleging mismanagement of the property of the Trust with a prayer for handing over management of the Trust to the three member committee constituted by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Indore and for conducting inquiry in the matter. By the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 the Registrar, Public Trust has constituted a three member committee for carrying out all the work of the Public Trust except the work of construction of the temple for the purpose of its management.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order directing revival of the committee which was held by this Court by order dated 19.01.2017 passed in W.P. No.6257/2015 to be non- existent and illegal is without jurisdiction and null and void. In view of provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951 the Registrar could have only directed an application to be made to the Court or could have himself made such an application but had no jurisdiction to pass any interim or final order for constitution/revival of a committee or for handing over the affairs of management of the Trust property to any person other than the trustees. Under the Act, 1951 the Registrar can only make an application to the Court and orders/directions thereon can be passed only by the Civil Court as has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Shivprasad Dubey V/s. Registrar, Public Trust 1967 JLJ SN 6 . Various subsequent events have Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 5 WP-23541-2018 taken place during pendency of the petition whereby no action by the Registrar is called for or required in the circumstances of the case. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State as well as learned counsel for respondents No.5, 7 and 11 have vehemently opposed the petition by filing replies and have submitted that by the impugned order the Registrar, Public Trust has categorically recorded a finding that the temple in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires repairs hence the directions as have been issued are perfectly legal. The proceedings taken place earlier have been duly taken into consideration and thereafter the direction has been issued in which there is no illegality. In the judgment passed in FA No.183/2007 the constitution of the three member committee had been accepted by the Trust which was empowered to carry out the management of the affairs of the Trust. The Trust now cannot turn around and say that such a three member committee cannot be constituted. The Registrar, Public Trust was specifically empowered to take action in accordance with law which he has taken by way of the impugned order. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. While passing the impugned order the Registrar, Public Trust has referred to the proceedings in the matter having been taken earlier including passing of the order dated 02.05.2013 in FA No.183/2007, order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Collector and orders passed by this Court in some Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 6 WP-23541-2018 other cases but has totally failed to take into consideration the order dated 19.01.2017 passed in W.P. No.6972/2015 which had been preferred against an order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Collector, District Indore after passing of judgment dated 02.05.2013 in FA No.183/2017. By order dated 16.09.2015 while granting No Objection Certificate to the trustees to renovate the temple in question a three member committee had been constituted in respect of the Trust. This Court carefully considered the previous order passed by the Collector and the order passed by this Court in F.A. No.183/2007 and eventually held as under :-
"This court has carefully gone through the impugned order and the same reveals that the Registrar Public Trust on 14-09-2004 has constituted a three member committee and, therefore, the learned Collector has in a mechanical manner while granting permission/reconstruction/renovation of the temple, again constituted a three member committee. Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 reads as under :-
"Section 26- Application to Court for directions.
(1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that,-
(a) the original object of the public trust has failed;
(b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered;
or
(c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust;
he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for directions within the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 7 WP-23541-2018 time specified by the Registrar.
(2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court.
Section 27- Court's power to bear application (1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into the case as it deems fit and pass such orders thereon as it may consider appropriate.
(2) While exercising the power, under sub-section (1) the Court shall, among other powers, have power to make an order for;-
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) declaring what portion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(d) providing a scheme management of the trust property;
(e) directing how the funds of a public trust whose original object has failed, shall be spent, having due regard to the original intention of the author of the trust or the object for which the trust was created;
(f) Issuing any directions as the nature of the Case may require.
(3) Any order passed by the Court under sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a decree of such Court and an appeal shall lie therefrom to the High Court.
(4) No suit relating to a public trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be entertained by any Court on any matter in respect of which an application can be made under Section 26.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 8 WP-23541-2018 Section:28- Officers holding inquiries to have the powers of Civil Court;- In holding inquiries under this Act, the Registrar shall have the same powers as are vested in courts in respect of the following matters, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), in trying a suit-
(a) proof of facts by affidavits;
(b) summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling the production of documents;
(d) Issuing of commissions."
In the present case, in the first round of litigation the matter has travelled to this court and in First Appeal No. 183/2007, after hearing the parties at length, the following order was passed :-
"Shri T.N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms Hemlata Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Shri L.L.Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel with Shri Rohit Mangal, Advocate for the respondents No.4 to 14.
This appeal under Section 27(3) of the M.P. Public Trust Act has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment ciated 26-08-2004, passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Indore in Misc. Case No. 198/2002.
On perusal of the record, it reveals that on an application submitted by there respondents No. 4 to 14, the Registrar, Public Trust has passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act and made a reference to the District Court, Indore to exercise the power conferred under the said Act, whereupon following direction were issued:-
''(1) पंजीयक लोक यास, इ दौर को यह िनदश दया जाता है क वह यथाशी ीराम मं दर धािमक एवं परमािथक यास, 30 खातीपुरा, इ दौर क स प के अनुर ण हे तु 3 (तीन) स म य य क िनयु कर जसम Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223
9 WP-23541-2018 एक सद य उस े के अनु वभागीय अिधकार (राज व) ह गे, शेष 2 सद य भगवान ीराम के ित आ था रखने वाले ऐसे य ह गे, जनका सम त आचरण आम नाग रक के म य व छ छ व का हो।
(2) िनिमत सद यीय सिमित यथाशी उ धािमक और परमािथक यास क सम त स प को अपने क जे म ा करे गी और उसका उिचत प से अनुर ण करे गी।
(3) उ सिमित ीराम मं दर धािमक एवं परमािथक यास क स प के संबंध म अब तक के किथत मैने जंग ट हलाददास से ट के दक ु ान आ द के कराये का अब तक का स पूण हसाब- कताब ा करे गी और अंके ण (आ डट) करवायेगी और य द यह पाया जाता है क कसी य ारा यास क स प का द ु विनयोग या नुकसान पहुच ं ाया है तो उ सिमित ऐसे य के खलाफ स म यायालय म नुकसानी क ितपूित ( रकवर ) हे तु सा प क करण (वसूली हे तु दावे) और ऐसे य य को द डत कये जाने हे तु आपरािधक करण िनयमानुसार तुत करके उनका विधवत संचालन पैरवी करे गी और करवायेगी।
(4) उ -सद यीय सिमित इन संभावनाओं का पता लगायेगी क ीराम मं दर धािमक एवं परमािथक यास, 30 खातीपुरा, इ दौर के समान इ दौर शहर म य द इसी कार का कोई ट है तो अंितम प से ऐसे दस ू रे ट को इस यास क इस यास को अंत रत कया जा सकता है या नह ं और य द यह पाया जाता है क ऐसा कया जाता है तो उस दस ू रे यास को इस यास क स प विधअनुकूल अंत रत करने क त परता एवं सावधानीपूवक कायवाह क जावेगी और य द यह पाया जाता है क इस यास के समान इ दौर शहर म इस यास क स प को मतापूवक संभालने वाला अ य कोई यास नह ं है तो इस संप को अंितम प से म य दे श रा य को अिभर ा म दये जाने क कायवाह यह -सद यीय सिमित िनयमानुसार स प न करवायेगी।
(5) इस -सद यीय सिमित क उपरो ानुसार अंितम प से अ य ट या म य दे श रा य म वे त करने क कायवाह तक यह पूण अिधकार होगा क वह ीराम मं दर धािमक एवं परमािथक यास क संपूण स प क उिचत प से दे खरे ख करे , उसक स प के आय- यय के लेखा रखे और सव म ढं ग से स पित का रखरखाव करे ।
(6) इस -सद यीय सिमित पंजीयक लोक यास, इ दौर के समय-समय पर यास के ब धन और उसे अंितम प से अ य यास को दये जाने या म य दे श रा य को इसे दये जाने के संबंध म पंजीयक लोक यास, इं दौर को ितवेदन तुत करे गी। पंजीयक लोक यास, इं दौर इस संबंध म उ - सद यीय सिमित से समय-समय पर ितवेदन ा करे गी।'' Learned Sr. counsel Shri T.N. Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he is having on grievance so far directions Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned. It has further contented by him that other directions No. 4 to 6 are not necessary to be complied with because at present the Trust has been reconstituted and those persons have been joined as partly before this court as per order dated 06-08-2010, however, at present the Trust is properly functioning and there is mismanagement prevalent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 10 WP-23541-2018 Shri L.L Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate contends that after issuance of direction by the learned District Judge, the action has been taken and the Trust is properly functioning and managing the temple and other properties, therefore, at this stage, the interference is not warranted.
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 14 submits that danger to the property of the Trust is being caused by Pujari and upon this, complaints have already been submitted to the Registrar. Therefore, the direction was issued by the District Court may be allowed to be carry out as per law, the Registrar is at liberty to take the action in accordance with law, otherwise the Trust shall be allowed to function."
This court has observed while deciding the First Appeal in the year 2013 that the trust is properly functioning and the property belongs to Public Trust. A liberty was certainly granted to the Registrar to examine the present status and functioning of the trust and to take action in accordance with law, if need so arises.
This court has carefully gone through the direction issued by the learned District ludge dated 26-08-2004. There was no such direction of handing over the renovation/construction of temple to the Committee. Not only this, a stay order was granted in First Appeal on 10-09-2004 and, therefore the subsequert constitution of committee on 14-09-2004 is of no relevance. There is no complaint against the trust brought on record by the learned Government Advocate nor there is subsequent onder passed u/s 26 in respect of the petitioner Public Trust. Sections 13 and 14 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 reads as under:-
"Section 13:- Investment of public trust money- All required for the day to day expenditure of the trust shall public trust other than monies be kept in a scheduled Bank or in any bank registered under the Co-operative uled bank or a Post Officer Savings Societies Act, 1912 (II of 1912) or with the approval of the Registrar with any Banker or person acting as a banker who has given such security for the safe custody and repayment on demand of the monies so deposited as the Registrar may in each case think sufficient:-
Provided that the Registrar may, by general or special Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223
11 WP-23541-2018 order, permit the trustee of any public trust or class of such public trust to invest the money in any other manner.
14. Previous sanction of Registrar, in cases of sale, etc. of property belonging to a public trust- (1) Subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any court:-
(a) no sale, mortgage, exchange of gift of any immovable property and
(b) no lease for a period exceeding seven years In the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or building:
belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar.
(2) The Registrar shall not refuse his sanction in respect of any transaction specified in sub-section (1) unless such transaction will, in his opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust."
It empowers the Public Trust to manage its property subject to the aforesaid terms and conditions as mentioned in Section 13 and 14. It is the trust in light of the M.P. Public frust Act, 1951, which has to manage its property, keeping in view Section 13 and 14 of the Trust Act. The three member Committee constituted by the learned Collector is a Committee of strangers and their names do not find place in the trust deed. Not only this, the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 26-08-2004 has come to an end and order dated 02-05-2013 passed in First Appeal No. 183/2007 is in existence. The committee constituted on account of order dated 26-08-2004 is also not in existence and the same could not have been constituted as the order dated 26-08-2004 was stayed by this court on 10-09-2004 and the Committee was constituted on 14-09-2004.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. impugned order passed by the Collector only to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 12 WP-23541-2018 extent a committee has been constituted to supervise the construction of the temple property is hereby set aside. The trust is permitted to proceed ahead with the renovation/construction of the temple, keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951."
10. In the said order this Court held that the Collector has in a mechanical manner constituted a three member committee. It observed that while deciding the First Appeal in the year 2013 this Court had observed that the Trust is properly functioning and the property belongs to the Public Trust. Liberty was granted to the Registrar to examine the present status and functioning of the Trust and to act in accordance with law if need so arises. There was no direction issued by the District Judge on 26.08.2004 directing for handing over renovation/construction of the temple to the committee. Since a stay order was granted in First Appeal on 10.09.2004 subsequent constitution of committee on 14.09.2004 is of no relevance. It was categorically held that the three member committee constituted by the Collector is a committee of strangers and their names do not find place in the Trust deed. The order passed by the District Judge dated 26.08.2004 has come to an end. The constitution of the three member committee was set aside. Despite the same on a fresh application preferred in respect of the properties of the Trust the impugned order has been passed. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by this Court in W.P. No.6972/2015 by order dated 19.01.2017 as aforesaid such constitution of committee is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
11. In the earlier order dated 16.09.2015 of the Collector which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 13 WP-23541-2018 set aside in W.P. No.6972/2015 by order dated 19.01.2017 the direction was for handing over the work of reconstruction of the temple to the three member committee instead of to Shri Laxmandas Ji Maharaj. In the impugned order going a step ahead the entire management of the Trust has been handed over to the three member committee. The same is wholly without jurisdiction. The constitution of the three member committee as made earlier by the Collector by order dated 16.09.2015 has already been held to be illegal by this Court hence constitution of such a committee again also is apparently illegal particularly when thereunder the entire management of the Trust has been handed over to the committee. Reliance by the learned counsel appearing for respondents on the judgment passed in FA No.183/2007 is of no avail to them since the said judgment has already been considered in detail by this Court by order dated 19.01.2017 passed in W.P. No.6972/2015 and thereafter the constitution of the three member committee has been set aside.
12. Moreover the complaint which was made before the Registrar, Public Trust was in respect of management of the Trust. The proceedings which have been carried out by the Registrar, Public Trust are under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 which is as under :-
"26. Application to Court for directions.
(1)If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that,-
(a)the original object of the public trust has failed;
(b)the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or
(c)the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust;
he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 14 WP-23541-2018 directions within the time specified by the Registrar. (2)If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court."
13. The aforesaid provision has already been interpreted by this Court in the case of Shivprasad Dubey (supra) wherein it has been held that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to appoint any committee to take charge of Trust property. The only powers given are enumerated by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 26 of the Act. Even if an interim arrangement is called for an application is to be made to the District Judge for the same. It is only the District Judge who has the power to make arrangement of the Trust property. In the present case also all that the Registrar could have done was to have proceeded under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951 but on his own could not have constituted a three member committee and issued directions as have been issued in the impugned order.
14. Further more during pendency of this petition additional documents have been brought on record by the petitioner which include judgment dated 14.09.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.1200065/2016 by the Civil Court dismissing the suit of respondents 3 to 11 for declaring appointment of the trustees of the Trust as illegal. After demolition of the entire old structure construction of a three storied new temple was completed in January, 2024 and Pran Pratishtha was performed on 31.02.2024. Thereafter worship of the deity is being carried out peacefully. Since then there is no complaint by any person regarding the Trust. It is thus evident that the temple has already been reconstructed and now can no longer be said to Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33223 15 WP-23541-2018 be dilapidated.
15. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure P/19) passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Indore cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 18-11-2025 17:44:39