Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Partap Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 April, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11499/2022
Partap Ram S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of
Jatton Ka Bass, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) (Aadhar No. 769185136188) Presently
Working As President Of Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir (Matha)
(Registration No. 22/2007 Jodhpur) Trust Village Jajiwal
Bhatiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Devsthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Devsthan, Udaipur.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur.
4. Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Division Officer Jodhpur,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 05/04/2024
Pronounced on 20/04/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming
the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of
petitioners that this writ petition for Public Interest
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (2 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
Litigation may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ,
order or directions may kindly be issued against the
respondents in following manners.
a) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order
dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by Deputy
Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, and the
order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-9) passed by Additional
Chief Secretary, Devsthan Department may kindly be
declared illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction further
same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the
respondent may kindly be directed to release all kind of the
withhold amount which is deposited against the
compensation of the acquisition of the land of non-
government temples of any part/region of the State and
further the State Authority may kindly be directed to grant
the compensation against any acquisition to the non-
Government Temples personally or their trust which is
working for management and administration of the temple.
c) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the
amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur in
pursuance of the award no.79 dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure-
6) against the acquisition of the land of Shri Mahadev Ji
Temple (Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji) at Village Jajiwal
Bhatiyan may kindly be released in favour of the Temple or
the Trust working for management of the temple, the
interest upon such amount from the date of award to till
realization may also be awarded.
d) That by an appropriate writ or direction may kindly be
issued and respondent Devsthan Commissioner may kindly
be directed to submit the entire details before this Hon'ble
Court of the deposit amount in his account in terms of the
compensation against the acquisition of land of non-
government temple and the details of the land which is
purchased for any temple according to the orders dated
19.01.2015 and 25.02.2015.
e) That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (3 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full
justice may also be allowed.
f) That the present graves the liberty to raise any other
point at the time of hearing in the court."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by
learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is
working as President of a Trust, namely, Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir
(Matha), Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, District Jodhpur and the said
trust was registered as Public Trust vide order dated 16.11.2007
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department,
Jodhpur under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 1959'). After the said registration, the
management of the aforesaid Temple was handled by the Trust
Committee, including the bank account and audit report.
2.1. Thereafter, on 26.06.2020, a Gazette Notification was
published under the National Highway Act, 1956 for construction
of Ring Road around the Jodhpur City, and pursuant to the same,
the land acquisition proceedings were also initiated, as regards
certain lands, including the Trust land and compensation award
was also passed on 25.05.2021 by the concerned authority, in lieu
of the said acquisition of lands, but as regards the Trust, the
awarded compensation amount was not transferred in its account.
2.2. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an
application before the Land Acquisition Officer for release of the
compensation amount towards acquisition of the Trust land. In the
said application, an order dated 19.01.2015 was passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the compensation
amount would be released and deposited into the account of the
respondent-Commissioner of the Devsthan Department.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (4 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
2.3. A Committee, as mentioned in the order, was already in
place for the purpose of utilizing the compensation amount. This
Committee would follow the necessary legal procedures and make
recommendations for the allotment of alternative land to the
Temple whose land has been acquired. Furthermore, instead of
keeping the compensation amount, the concerned municipal or
local bodies will purchase alternative land(s) using the funds so
deposited in the Devsthan Department's account, for the purpose
of allotment of such land to the owners of the land(s) so acquired.
Similar order was also passed by the respondent Devsthan
Department on 25.02.2015.
2.4. Thus, being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.01.2015 &
25.02.2015, the present petition has been preferred claiming the
afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondents' order to withhold the compensation amount, payable
towards acquisition of the Temple's khatedari land, is arbitrary and
illegal. It was also argued that once the compensation award has
been passed, the Temple is fully entitled to receive the said
amount.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Trust is
registered under the Act of 1959 for the management and
administration of the Temple, and therefore, the said Temple
should not be considered as a government-administered temple.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that under the Act of 1959,
the Devsthan Commissioner is the supervisory authority for the
management and control of government Temples or the Temples
that are receiving grants from the State. However, in the present
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (5 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
case, the Temple is not managed by the government, so the
supervisory power of the Devsthan Commissioner as regards the
said Temple are not exercisable.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the temple or trust
is not receiving any grants or funds from the government, and
therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 and guidelines
regarding government control and administration do not apply to
the petitioner trust or temple. Therefore, the orders in question
are not justified in law.
3.4. Leaned counsel also submitted that the deity of the temple is
a perpetual minor and any kind of act against the interests and
rights of the deity cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In
support of such submission, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Through Devotee Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
396/2020 & other connected matter, decided on
04.11.2022).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that as per Section 37 of the
Act of 1959, the Commissioner of the Devasthan Department,
being the Treasurer of the charitable endowments of the Rajasthan
State, the compensation amount, in lieu of land acquisition is
required to be deposited with the Department as a security for
purchasing the property that includes the Temple idol.
4.1. It was further submitted that as per the impugned order, a
Committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (6 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
District Collector, and a direction was issued to allot the land to be
purchased out of the compensation amount so deposited with the
department to the temple on the recommendations of the said
Committee.
4.2. It was also submitted that since the Temple is a perpetual
minor and the pujari/trustee is a de facto guardian thereof,
therefore the pujari/trustee is authorized only to the extent of
managing the Temple's property and falls under the definition of
Section 11 of the Hindi Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Therefore, as per learned counsel, the petitioner is not legally
entitled to receive the compensation amount.
4.3. It was further submitted that the Government of Rajasthan
has issued a circular dated 11.06.2020, in which it has been
specifically stated that the trust/pujari is not authorized to obtain
the acquisition amount in lieu of land acquisition so made and the
impugned decision was taken in larger public interest so as to
safeguard the Doli lands. It was also submitted that the said
circular was not challenged by the petitioner in present PIL.
4.4. Learned Counsel for the Devasthan Department in addition
to above submissions, submitted that the Devasthan Department
has still not received the acquisition amount from the competent
authority.
5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the petitioner is working as
President of a registered Trust, namely, Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir
(Matha), Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, District Jodhpur. On 26.06.2020,
a Gazette Notification was published under the National Highway
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (7 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
Act, 1956 for construction of Ring Road around the Jodhpur City,
and pursuant to the same, the land acquisition proceedings were
also initiated, as regards certain lands, including the Trust land
and compensation award was also passed on 25.05.2021 by the
concerned authority, in lieu of the said acquisition of lands, but as
regards the Trust, the awarded amount was not transferred in its
account.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application
before the Land Acquisition Officer for release of the compensation
amount of acquisition of Trust land in its favour. The Land
Acquisition Officer vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2015
stated that the compensation amount shall be released in the
account of the respondent-Commissioner Devasthan Department
and subsequently, the Devasthan Department vide impugned
order dated 25.02.2015 also passed the similar order.
8. This Court further observes that the Revenue Department,
Government of Rajasthan issued a circular dated 11.06.2020 (P.9
(34) Raj-6/2019/101) wherein it is clearly stated under both the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, the compensation in lieu of the
acquisition of Temple land is not receivable by the pujari/trustee,
who acts as the caretaker of the land; instead, the compensation
amount is required to be deposited with the concerned
department, which in the present case is the respondent Devsthan
Department.
Relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced as
hereunder:-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (8 of 15) [CW-11499/2022]
^^jktLFkku ljdkj
jktLo ¼xzqi&6½ foHkkx
i-9 ¼34½ jkt&6@2019@101 t;iqj fnukad %& 11@06@2020
1- leLr] lEHkkxh; vk;qDrA
2- leLr] ftyk dyDVj] jktLFkkuA
ifji=
---------
vr% ,sls izFke Js.kh ds izdj.kksa esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe ds lac/k esa 1984 vf/kfu;e ,oa 2013 vf/kfu;e ds rgr iqtkjh@VªLV ^^ds;jVsdj eSustj^^ dh gSfl;r ls fdlh izdkj dk eqvkotk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA bl izdkj ds izdj.kksa esa eqvkotk fu/kkZj.k iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx dh vkKk dzekad i-6¼1½ iz-lq-@vuq&3@2015 fnukad 19-01-2015 ¼layXud&1½ ds vuqlkj lacaf/kr foHkkx esa tek fd;k tkrk jgsxkA
------ ----
8- tSlk fd layXud &4 ,oa layXud&5 esa Li"V gS fd eafnj ekQh ds dbZ izdj.kksa esa 1952 vf/kfu;e ds izHkkoh gksus ds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr Hkw&izca/k laafdz;k ds nkSjku [kkrsnkjh dk xyr bUnzkt tkxhj vf/kfu;e ds foijhr ntZ fd;k x;k gS] ;k vuqfpr :i ls jsQjsUl nk;j dj tkxhj vf/kfu;e ds foijhr xyr :i ls [kkrsnkjh dk vafdu fd;k x;k gS ;k ckn esa laLFkk ;k VªLV dk xBu dj bl izdkj dh laLFkk ds uke [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dk vadu dj fn;k x;k gSA bl rjg ds izdj.kksa esa ,sls O;fDr@lLFkk@VªLV bl foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad i- 3¼2½jkt&6@2017 ikVZ@101 t;iqj] fnukad 18-09-2019 ¼layXud&2½ ds vuqlkj fdlh izdkj dk [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr djus ds ik= ugha gS] ,oa bl dkj.k ls os Hkwfe vkokfIr vf/kfu;e 1984 ,oa Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k esa mfpr eqvkotk vkSj ikjnf'kZrk dk vf/kdkj] iquZokl vkSj iquZLFkkiuk vf/kfu;e 2013 ds rgr eqvkotk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh Hkh ugha gS A^^
9. This Court also observes that as per the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has no right to claim the compensation amount for (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (9 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] acquisition of the Temple land, and thus, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned orders.
10. This Court further observes that in view of the above, and particularly, the afore-quoted circular, the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the land acquisition of the temple because it is evident that the amount has to remain in the account of the Devasthan Commissioner. Furthermore, the land was to be purchased from the concerned entities such as the Nigam, Panchayat, and Development Authority, for allotment thereto to the Temple as compensation in lieu of the acquisition in question. This entire process was carried out by the Collector as Chairman of the Committee, and four other members, which is perfectly justified in law.
10.1. The said Committee was comprising of District Collector (as Chairman), and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Executive Officer / Secretary of Development Authority / Executive Engineer of Housing Board / Sub Divisional Officer, Officer of the Accounts Services posted in the District, as nominated by the District Collector and Concerned Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department.
10.2 This Court further observes that the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the respondent-Devsthan Department clearly stated as to how the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple land in question is to be utilized. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced as hereunder:-
"jktLFkku ljdkj nsoLFkku foHkkx (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (10 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] dzekad i-5¼9½nso@2003 t;iqj] fnukad 25@2@2025 vk;qDr] nsoLFkku foHkkx] mn;iqjA fo"k; %& vjktdh; eafnj@efnj U;kl dh Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k dk eqvkotk Hkqxrku ds lac/k esaA izlax %& vkidk i= dzekad ,Q 3¼4½ lkekU;@nso@2004&ikVZ&1@8094 fnukad 4-6-2012 egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa pkgk x;k ekxZn'kZu fuEu izdkj gS%& 1- jktdh; eafnjksa ds vokfIr ls izkIr jkf'k ls muds iquZokl dh O;oLFkk nsoLFkku foHkkx }kjk dh tkosxhA iqjkrRo egRo ds eafnjksa dk iquZokl iqjkrRo foHkkx }kjk djok;k tkosxk rFkk iquZokl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku eqvkotk jkf'k esa ls fd;k tk,xkA 2- Hkwfe ij cksbZ Qly ds eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku vokfIr ls iwoZ Hkwfe ds mi;ksx@miHkksx dh mi [k.M vf/kdkjh ls tkap mijkUr eafnj iqtkjh dks mi[k.M vf/kdkjh@rglhynkj ds ek/;e ls okf"kZd Hkqxrku dh tkosaA 3- vjktdh; eafnj dh Hkwfe vokfIr ij izkIr eqvkotk jkf'k vk;qDr] nsoLFkku foHkkx ds futh fu{ksi [kkrs esa iwoZ dh rjg tek dh tkrh jgsA lacf/kr eafnj ftldh Hkwfe vokfIr ij eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr gqbZ gS] ml jkf'k ls Hkwfe uxj fuxe@iapk;r lfefr@fodkl izkf/kdj.k@vkoklu e.My dh tks Hkwfe miyC/k gks] og ml laLFkk ds }kjk ekaxh xbZ jkf'k ds vuq:i vnk dj cnys esa tehu eafnj ds uke vkoafVr djkbZ tkosxhA ,ot esa Hkwfe fnyokus ds fy;s ftyk dyDVj dh v/;{krk esa ,d LFkkbZ lfefr desVh xfBr dh xbZ gS] tks Hkwfe dk p;u dj] ns; jkf'k fu/kkZfjr dj vk;qDr] nsoLFkku foHkkx] jktLFku dks viuh vuq'kalk izsf"kr djsxh ,oa vk;qDr] nsoLFkku mDr jkf'k dks uxj fuxe@iapk;r lfefr@fodkl izkf/kdj.k@vkoklu e.My dks vnk djsaxsA cnys esa izkIr dh xbZ Hkwfe lacf/ kr eafnj ds uke jgsxhA bl lac/k esa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx }kjk tkjh vkKk la[;k i -6¼1½izlq@vuq&3@2015 fnukad 19-1-2025 }kjk fuEukuqlkj LFkkbZ lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gS%& 1- ftyk dyDVj v/;{k 2- eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn lnL; 3- uxj fuxe dk vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh@ ;k fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk lfpo@vkoklu e.My dk vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark@mi[k.M vf/kdkjh lnL; 4- ftys esa inLFkkfir ys[kk lsok dk vf/kdkjh tks ftyk dysDVj }kjk ukfer gks lnL;
5- lacf/kr lgk;d vk;qDr] nsoLFkku foHkkx leUo;d vkKk fnukad 19-1-2015 dh QksVksizfr layXu gSA Hkonh;] ,l- Mh- "
11. This Court also observes that the Devsthan Commissioner was appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1959 and the State Government may specify the duties and functions of the Commissioner by any General and Special Orders in the territories (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (11 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] to which this Act extends, and that, the State Government issued the aforementioned Circular dated 11.06.2020, which requires deposition of the compensation amount in lieu of the acquisition of the Temple land in the account of the concerned department, which in the present case is the respondent-Devsthan department. Therefore, the compensation amount in question to remain in account of Commissioner of Devsthan Department is justified in law, which otherwise, as prescribed, would serve the interests of the Temple/Trust, inasmuch as the said amount of compensation, would be utilized, as per the recommendations of the Committee. Sec. 7 - Devasthan Commissioner:
1. The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint an officer to be called the Devasthan Commissioner, who, in addition to other duties and functions imposed on him by or under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall subject to the general and special orders of the State Government superintend the administration and carry out the provision of this Act through the territories to which this Act extends.
2. The Commissioner shall be corporation sole by the name of the Devasthan Commissioner of the State of Rajasthan, shall as such have perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in his corporate name.
11.1. This Court further observes in Chapter IX of the Act of 1959 "Control over Public Trust", it is stated that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner have power to call, return, statements, account or report from the working trustee or other trustee of, or from any person connected with (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (12 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] a public trust, which shows that the said authorities work for the benefits and interests of the public trust(s) and therefore, in the given circumstances, pujari/trustee cannot claim control of the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple land.
12. This Court also observes that as per Section 37 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is deemed to be a Treasurer of a Charitable Endowments in the State of Rajasthan. As per the aforequoted circular, the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the Temple's land is required to be deposited in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. Therefore, any act of the Commissioner as Treasurer would not be prejudicial to the rights and interests of such Temple/Trust. For ready reference the said Section 37 of the Act of 1959 is reproduced as hereunder:-
"Sec. 37 - Commissioner to be Treasurer of Charitable Endowments:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (Central Act VI of 1890), the Commissioner shall be deemed to be the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for the State of Rajasthan appointed under the provisions of the said Act and the property vesting in the Treasurer before the date on which this Act comes into force shall be deemed to vest in the Commissioner as the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments, and the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the Commissioner as the treasurer of Charitable Endowments appointed under the said Act."
12.1. This Court further observes that the Commissioner is deemed to be a Treasurer of the charitable endowments in the (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (13 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] State of Rajasthan and definition of the 'charitable endowments' as contained in Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1959, reads as under:-
"(3) "Charitable endowment" means all property given or endowed for the benefit of. or used as of right by, the community or any section thereof for the support or maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or section; such as resthouses, pathshalas, schools and colleges, houses for feeding the poor and institutions for the advancement of education, medical relief and public health or other objects of a like nature and includes the institution concerned;"
12.2. This Court also observes that the Temple in question is registered as a Public Trust and the definition of 'Public Trust' as contained in Section 2 (11) of the Act of 1959 reads as under:-
"(11) "Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or chartable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both;"
12.3. This Court further observes that the Temple in question is a registered public trust, further the term 'charitable endowment' is covered under the above-said definition of 'Public Trust', and the Commissioner, as per Section 37 of the Act of 1959, acts as the Treasurer of the Temple receiving charitable endowment. This Court further observes that the Commissioner is having control as Treasurer over the said endowment, and furthermore, the Temple (deity) is a perpetual minor and is a registered public trust, the petitioner cannot claim control in regard to any compensation payable in lieu of the land acquisition of the temple in question, as (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (14 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] it is the duty of the State through Commissioner of the respondent-Devsthan Department, to ensure protection of rights and interests of the Temple.
12.4. This Court also observes that the State Government is the best authority to protect the right of the temple and in particular, under the Act of 1959, the Commissioner, being a Treasurer is empowered to exercise its control over the Temple and also to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the Temple land.
13. This Court also observes that the entire exercise carried out by the respondents is aimed at protecting and safeguarding the Temple land and was done in the larger public interest. The orders in question clearly demonstrate the lawful manner in which the compensation amount is being proposed to be utilized for the benefit of the Temple, whose land has been acquired pursuant to the proceedings in question.
14. This Court further observes that as per the settled proposition of law, the Temple (deity) is a perpetual minor and the pujari/trustee acts only as its caretaker and thus, the compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple's land has to remain in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Departmnet, who in turn, would utilize the same for purchase of alternate land as per the decision of the Committee, and such land after being purchased would be allotted back to the Temple, thus, completely protecting and safeguard its rights and interests. Hence, the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner does not render any assistance to his case, more particularly, when due to the (Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:15410-DB] (15 of 15) [CW-11499/2022] custodian role of the respondent-Devsthan Department, no prejudice is being caused to the Temple and the deity.
15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and afore-quoted circular as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present PIL Petition.
16. Consequently, the present petition (PIL) is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2024 at 08:41:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)