Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1964 DIGILAW 41 (MP)

Budhoolal v. Registrar, Public Trust

1964-03-06

S.P.Bhargava, T.P.Naik

body1964
ORDER Naik J. The only question that arises for consideration in this miscellaneous petition is whether the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2) could be held to be the Registrar of public Trusts within the meaning of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners claim to be working as sarbarakars of the temple 'Shri Radhakrishna and Bhagwan Viswakarma', Niwadganj, Jabalpur. They allege that after the coming into force of the Act, respondent No. 3, Kashiram Viswakarma, made an application for registration of the aforesaid trust under section 4 of the Act to the registrar of public Trusts, Jabalpur, where Shri V.S. Tambey, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, purporting to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts; Jubalpur, passed the impugned order (Annexure A) on 12-3-1955, in Revenue Cace (No. 47/125 of 1954-55, side head XXXIII /9, ordering the Registration of Shri Radhakrishna Bhagwan temple as a public trust with the direction that, Kashiram, respondent No. 3, be recorded as the sole trustee of the said trust in addition to the other entries made in the Register of the Registrar. The petitioners contend that he aforesaid order (Annexure A) was passed by a person who was not authorized act as ‘the Registrar of Public Trusts' within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, and that it was also passed without making any inquiry as contemplated by section 5 of the Act. 3 It is not in dispute that impugned order was passed by Shri O.S. Tambey, I.A.S., purporting to act as 'the Registrar of Public Trusts Jabalpur'. He was at the relevant time acting as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (now known as the Additional Collector), Jabalpur. 4. Under section 3 of the Act, the Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trusts the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-section (3) of section 4 is situate in his district’. As it is not disputed that Shri V.S. is Tambey was not the Collector, the question that arises for consideration is whether an Additional Collector could act as the Registrar of Public Trusts within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. 5. A similar question arose for consideration in Shah Fariduddin Vs. As it is not disputed that Shri V.S. is Tambey was not the Collector, the question that arises for consideration is whether an Additional Collector could act as the Registrar of Public Trusts within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. 5. A similar question arose for consideration in Shah Fariduddin Vs. Mohammad Akbar and others 1957 NLJ 551 at p. 552 wherein an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (as the office of the Additional Collector was then designated) came to be challenged on the ground that he could not act as the Registrar of Public Trusts under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act. Answering the contention the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Mudholkar and Kotval, JJ.) said: "Under section 3 (1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of, business of which as declared, in application made under sub-section (3) of section 4 is situate in his district, It will thus be clear that the Deputy Commissioner alone is constituted the Registrar of Public Trusts and an Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot arrogate to himself or cannot be delegated powers to perform the function of the Registrar of Public Trusts. Reliance, is, however placed on the provisions of section 9-A of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. That section reads thus: (1) The State Government may appoint an Additional Deputy-Commissioner in a district. (2) An Additional Deputy Commissioner shall hold his office during the pleasure of the State Government. (3) An Additional Deputy Commissioner shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Deputy C0mmissioner or a Collector by this Act or by any enactment for the time being in force (or by any rule made under this Act or any such other enactment) in such cases or class of cases as the Deputy Commissioner of the district may direct. *** *** *** *** (4) It is contended that since under section 9-A (3) An Additional Deputy Commissioner is empowered to exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties imposed on a Deputy Commissioner by the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917 or by any other Art in respect of cases or class of cases made over to him by the Deputy Commissioner of the district, he can also exercise the powers and perform the duties imposed upon the Deputy Commissioner by the provisions of the Public Trusts Act. It is to be noted, however, that the Public Trusts Act confers powers and enjoins performance of the duties only upon the Registrar of Public Trust; It does not confer, any power on the Deputy Commissioner nor does it enjoin upon the Deputy Commissioner to perform any duty Clearly, therefore, the provisions of section 9-A cannot be availed of in this connection. The Deputy Commissioner is a personal designata under section 3 (1) of the Public Trusts Act and consequently he alone can act as Registrar of Public Trust and no one else." The principal enunciated above fully applies to this case also; and as the 'Collector' is a persona designata under the Act, he alone could act as the Registrar of Public Trust and no one else. An Additional Collector would thus have no power to Act as the Registrar of Public Trust; and in so for as Shri V.S. Tambey, respondent No. 2, who was an Additional Deputy Commissioner at the time (by which name the office of an Additional Collector was' then known), purported to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts, his action in doing so was without jurisdiction. 5. In the view we take, we need not examine the other contention that the impugned order was passed without making any enquiry as contemplated by section 5 of the Act. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners, Counsel's fee Rs. 50.