Vasant Diwakar v. Registrar Public Trust, Balaghat
1978-09-18
G.P.SINGH, J.S.VERMA
body1978
DigiLaw.ai
Short Note : 1. The petitioners applied for registration of a trust as a Public Trust under section 5 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. On this application objections were raised by a number of persons. The application was sent for enquiry to the Sub Divisional Officer. After making an enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer reported that the trust in question is a Public Trust and that it should be registered. For some reason the Registrar remanded the case for further enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer. On 15-3-1971, a counsel appeared for the petitioners. The objectors, who are referred as non-applicants, were absent. It was observed that notices could not be issued to the non-applicants, as the petitioners did not pay process fee. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after noting this made a report to the Registrar that the application of the petitioners be dismissed under section 35 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. This report was accepted by this Registrar, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under section 35 (1) of the Land Revenue Code, by his order dated 22-3-1971. It is against this order that this petition under Article 266 of the Constitution has been filed in this Court. Held : In our opinion, this petition must be allowed. Section 30 of the Public Trusts Act, makes the Civil Procedure Code applicable to the proceedings under the Act, in so far as the provisions of the Code are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. The procedure provided in the Land Revenue Code is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Registrar both acted in excess of jurisdiction in passing orders under section 35 (1) of the Land Revenue Code. Even otherwise we find that the order is defective on merits. After a case is remanded, the duty to issue notices to the parties concerned is on the Court. One of the parties cannot be compelled to pay process fee for noticing the other party. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners were at fault in not paying the process fee for issuing notices to the objectors or the non-applicants. Petition allowed.