Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amrit Puri & Ors vs State & Ors on 25 April, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 41 / 2001
1. Amrit Puri S/o Shanker Puri Gusai, R/o Farara, Tehsil
Rajsamand.
2. Shiv Giri S/o Bhanwar Giri, R/o Farara, Tehsil Rajsamand.
3. Dungar Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Karnawat, R/o Rajsamand.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Rajsamand.
2. Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur.
4. Bahadur Singh S/o Badan Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Farara,
District Rajsamand.
5. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh Rathore.
6. Heer Singh S/o Indra Singh Rathore.
7. Bheru Singh S/o Khuman Singh Rathore.
8. Lal Singh S/o Bhim Singh Rathore.
9. Amar Singh S/o Khum Singh Rathore.
10. Laxman Singh S/o Khem Singh Rathore, Respondents No.5 to
10 all R/o Farara, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Khet Singh
Mr. Siddharth Joshi for Mr. J.P. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Mehta, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ramit Mehta
Mr. Tarun Dudia
Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
_____________________________________________________
(2 of 6)
[SAW-41/2001]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 25/04/2017 This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 14.11.2000 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.119/1993.
The writ petition aforesaid was preferred to question correctness of the order dated 15.12.1992 passed by the Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur adjudicating an appeal under Section 20 of the Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act of 1959').
Learned Single Bench while dismissing the writ petition arrived at the conclusion that the remedy to challenge such an order is available under Section 22 of the Civil Suit of the Act of 1959.
Section 22 of the Act of 1959 provides that if any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property aggrieved by any entry made under Section 21 may, within six months from the date of the publication thereof on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (1) of the Section 21, institute a suit in a civil court to have such entry cancelled or modified.
The case of the petitioner before learned Single Bench was that the order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and, therefore, ample power is available to writ court to entertain (3 of 6) [SAW-41/2001] a petition for writ despite availability of the remedy under Section 22 ibid.
From perusal of the facts stated and the discussion made in the judgment impugned, it is apparent that learned Single Bench quite in detail examined the entire matter and arrived at a definite conclusion that not a single issue decided by the commissioner was beyond the jurisdiction vested with him.
The relevant part of the judgment dealing with the issue reads as follows:
"Section 22 provides opportunity to the aggrieved person against the entries made under Section 21 of the Act in accordance with the finding reached by the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner as the case may be to institute civil suit to get such entries cancelled or modified. In such civil suit assistant commissioner is to be a party. On the final decision of the suit, the Assistant Commissioner shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with such decision. It is apparent that the applications having been made by the petitioner as well as respondents Badan Singh Claiming to be working trustee to get the Public Trust Registered proceedings under Section 18 were bound to follow and reach its logical conclusion and recording of the finding of the Assistant Commissioner is definite and if in appeal by the Devstan Commissioner the finding are varied or modified, such findings are conclusive subject to result of suit, if any, filed in that regard. On reaching the finding on various matters, the requirement of the act is to notify the same on the notice board and to enter such entries in register under Section 21 by the authorities concerned in the Register of Public Trust and publish the same. There (4 of 6) [SAW-41/2001] would be another opportunity to the persons aggrieved to challenge the correctness of the decision through properly instituted suit. Thus the Act provides a complete Code in itself so far as question of registration and entries to be made thereunder.
The Commissioner of Devstan has not travelled beyond that jurisdiction as is apparent from the fact that in terms of law the enquiry was conducted under Section 18 by the Assistant Commissioner and he reached his finding whether a public trust exist, what is the origin, nature and object of such trust, whether any property is situated within his jurisdiction, whether the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust and correctness of other particulars required to be furnished under sub section (4) of Section 17. The appeal was preferred relating to finding on Item No. (iv) (v) and (vi) narrated in Section 18(1) of the Act. Viz., the origin of the trust, the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager of such trust and mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust. The petitioner had claimed that the trust originated through Shiv Singh who is ancestor of Shankar Puri. The respondent trustee claimed origin through Durgaji ancestor of Badan Singh. The mode of succession was claimed to be hereditary. It depended upon the finding about the originator of the trust. The commissioner unequivocally found that the temple was constructed by ancestor of respondent Badan Singh and not of Shankarpuri. Office of the Trust is hereditary and respondent Badan Singh is the hereditary trustee of the public trust because the office is hereditary. It may also be relevant to notice that the Act defines expression of 'hereditary trustee' in Section 2(7) of the Act. It is stated that hereditary trustee means the trustee of a public trust succession (5 of 6) [SAW-41/2001] to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is represented by usages or is specifically provided for by the founder.
In these circumstances when the origin of the trust and nature of the appointment to the public trust is inherent, in an inquiry under Section 19, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary that such question cannot be decided by Assistant commissioner or the Commissioner in the proceedings under Sections 19 and 20, is devoid of force as all incidental matters enumerated in Section 18 are within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to deal with and give finding thereon and the entries are to be made in accordance with such findings which are conclusive subject to the right of aggrieved party to challenge the same by way of suit and not otherwise.
In the aforesaid circumstances, order dated 15.12.1992 neither suffers from want of jurisdiction nor any such error in the matter of appreciation of evidence which may call for interference through issuance of writ of certiorari. "
Learned Single Bench also noticed that there was no dispute that an inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner in accordance with the procedure laid down and there was no irregularity in the procedure adopted.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant utterly failed to satisfy us as to what error has been committed by learned Single Bench. As a matter of fact, the counsel even failed to open the case on merits. It is not in dispute that a remedy to approach civil court is available to the petitioner and that court is (6 of 6) [SAW-41/2001] competent to examine every aspect of the matter. Once learned Single Bench refused to evoke the jurisdiction vested with it, we find no reason to interfere with that in our appellate jurisdiction.
The appeal, hence, is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Ramesh/9