JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been presented by Devki Nandan against the order dated 31st Oct., 91, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4768 (sic 4786) of 1990, [Judgment reported in 1991(1) RLR 2911 whereby, the said writ petition filed by Ram Swaroop was allowed; the order of the Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur, dated 17th July, 90, was set aside; and that of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur, dated 8th May, 1989, was restored. 2. It is a matter of history of former Jaipur State that Maharaja Jagat Singh ruled Jaipur State from 1803 to 1818 AD, and his son Maharaja Jai Singh, from 1818 to 1835 AD. Late Maharaja Ram Singh was grandson of Maharaja Jagat Singh, and he succeeded to the throne of Jaipur State in the year 1892 AD. At that time, Maharaja Ram Singh was a minor and the State was being managed by a "Minority Administration". 3. After a careful reading of the 'Patta' (Ex. 1), we are of the opinion that the sum and substance of its recitals are that the deceased Maharaja, after purchasing land from Malis, had constructed 'mahal' for the residence of Maji Seventh Bhataniji and 'Bagichi' and house on land measuring 3 bighas and for 'Bagichi' 3 bighas. This property was situated outside Kishanpole, Jaipur. A memorandum under signatures of Deewans regarding assurance for grant of six bighas charity land with effect from miti Bhadwa Sudi 3 Samvat-1893 to Swami Ramballabh, Chela of Swami Ramjidas, Ram Sanehi, was received by the committee. It was ordered that with effect from the summer crop of Samvat-1892 'Parwana' be issued to the effect that the aforesaid six bighas land would be treated as a charity-land. Parwana was handed over to the ruler, and it was not to be demanded back, and the land was to be treated as charity-land with effect from the summer crop of Samvat 1892. In accordance with the assurance of miti Baisakh Budi 6 Samvat 1893 through Sampat Ram Deewan, this Parwana was ordered to be issued of the charity-land for Swami Ram Ballabh, Chela, Swami Ramjidas in accordance with the memorandum signed by Deewans with effect from Bhadwa Sudi 6 Samvat 1893. In accordance with the assurance of miti Baisakh Budi 6 Samvat 1893 through Sampat Ram Deewan, this Parwana was ordered to be issued of the charity-land for Swami Ram Ballabh, Chela, Swami Ramjidas in accordance with the memorandum signed by Deewans with effect from Bhadwa Sudi 6 Samvat 1893. In accordance with the above orders, "Parwana" treating this land as charity-land, had been executed on miti Baisakh Bui 1 Samvat 1893. Request was again made regarding 6 bighas land for signatures of Deewans. Thereupon, seals of the ruler were affixed on the 'Patta' and the usual mode of signing by writing the word, 'Sahi' was made with an insigna of sword on Patta (Annex. 1). This is how the above six bighas land with aforesaid structures on it, was granted during the minority of the former ruler of Jaipur State Maharaja Ram Singh in favour of Swami Ramballabh, Chela of Swami Ramjidas, Ramsanehi. 4. Could it be said from this grant as evidenced by Annexure-1 that it was a grant of the ruler of the former Jaipur State to Swami Ramballabh of Ramsanehi sect for public religious or charitable purposes ? The terms of the grant by themselves do not at all indicate that it was a grant to Swami Ramballabh for any public religious or charitable purpose. It was neither a grant to any deity or mutt nor any other charitable purpose for the grant was specified. No duties were enjoined upon the grantee to be performed and no object to be served by the grant was mentioned. 5. The mere fact that Swamis of Ram Sanehi sect did not marry and propertics held by them descended from Guru to Chela was not indicative of and did not raise a presumption of such properties being religious properties. If orginally the property was acquired by a mahant, the fact of its descent subsequently from Guru to Cehla did not lead to the conclusion that it has lost its secular character. Where, however, a property is dedicated to an idol for the object of performing its Puja and other necessary ceremonies, the person managing such property is only a Shebait, the idol being a juristic person in Hindu Law, capable of holding such property. Where, however, a property is dedicated to an idol for the object of performing its Puja and other necessary ceremonies, the person managing such property is only a Shebait, the idol being a juristic person in Hindu Law, capable of holding such property. In order to show that particular property is a trust-property held for public purposes, it has to be shown that the trust is not a private trust, but is one substantially for public purposes of a religious and charitable nature (See Permanand v. Nihal Chand, (1938) ILR 65 IA. 252 , and Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, AIR 1971 SC 2057 . 6. Dedication to the public is not to be readily inferred when it is known that the temple property was acquired by grant to an individual or family. Such an inference, if made from the fact of user by the public is hazardous, since it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshippers should be turned away, and as worship generally implies offerings of some kind, it is not to be expected that the managers of a private temple should in all circumstances, desire to discourage popularity (see Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop, 67 Indian Appeals 1 . 7. In Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (supra), the Supreme Court held that the mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer therefrom dedication to the public. The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right. 8. In this very case, dealing with dedication to Mutts or Asthals, his Lordship Shelat, J., speaking for the Court, observed : "A religious Mutt in northern India is usually known as Asthal, a monastic institution founded for the maintenance and spread of particular Sampradaya or cult. The distinction between dedication to a temple and a Mutt is that in the former case it is to a particular deity, while in the latter, it is to a superior or a Mahant. The distinction between dedication to a temple and a Mutt is that in the former case it is to a particular deity, while in the latter, it is to a superior or a Mahant. But, just as in the case of debutter endowment, there is both a private and a public endowment, so too there can be the same distinction between a private and a public Mutt. A Mutt can be dedicated for the use of ascetics generally or for the ascetics of a particular sect or cult, in which case it would be a public institution. Mutts have generally Sadvrats, i.e., arrangements for giving food and shelter to way-farers and ascetics attached to them. They may have temples to which the public is allowed access. Such circumstances might indicate the public character of the institution. But, it is not impossible to have a private Mutt, where the endowment is not intended to confer benefit upon the public generally or even upon the members of a particular religious sect or order. Examples do occur where the founder may grant property to his spiritual preceptor and his disciples in succession with a view to maintain one particular spiritual family and for perpetuation of certain rights and ceremonies which are deemed to be conducive to the spiritual welfare of the founder and his family. In such cases, it would be the grantor and his descendants who are the only persons interested in seeing that the institution is kept up for their benefit. Even if a few ascetics are fed and given shelter, such a purpose is not to be deemed an independent charity in which the public or a section of it has an interest. Such charities, as already stated earlier, appertain to a private debutter also (see B.K. Mukherjea, Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (3rd ed.) 303, 304). The existence of a private Mutt, where the property was given to the head of the Mutt for his personal benefit only, has in the past been recognised (see Matam Nadipudi v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (AIR 1938 Madras 810 and Missir v. Dass (1949) ILR 28 Patna 890) . In such cases, there is no intention on the part of the grantor to fetter the grantee with any obligation in dealing with the property granted. In such cases, there is no intention on the part of the grantor to fetter the grantee with any obligation in dealing with the property granted. In each case, the court has to come to its conclusion either from the grant itself or from the circumstances of the case whether the grant was for the benefit of the public or section of it, i.e., an ascertained classes, or for the benefit of the grantee himself or for a class of ascertained individuals. An inference can also be drawn for the usage and custom of the institution or from the mode in which its properties have been dealt with as also other established circumstances." 9. There were in force, "Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945" in former Jaipur State, except the Sambhar Shamlat area. Rule 4(1) of the Rules defined "State-Grant" as meaning a grant of an interest in land made or recognised by the Ruler of the Jaipur State and included a Jagir, muamla, suba, istimrar, chakoti, badh, bhom, inam, tankha, udak, milak, aloofa or religious grant, a site granted free of premium for residence or a garden, or other grant of a similar nature. 'Matmi' meant mutation of the name of the successor to a State-Grant on the death of the last holder. The person in whose naive matmi was sanctioned was called the 'matmidar' and the sum payable by him on his recognition as such by the State, was called 'matabba matmi'. Rule 18(1) of the Rules, however, provided that "notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, a grant, irrespective of its nature, including a bhog grant, made originally by the Minority Administration without the approval of the Resident on any day from Posh Budi 9 Svt. 1875 to Bhadwa Sudi 14 Svt. 1908 was to be deemed to be invalid ab initio, and no mahni, other than a matmi sanctioned after 9th February, 1937, was to be deemed to have validated such grant. Thus sub-rule did not apply if, during the matmi proceedings relating to such grant, the fact that it had been made without authority by the Minority Administration was specifically brought to the notice of the Ruler and the Ruler sanctioned with full knowledge of the character of the grant. Thus sub-rule did not apply if, during the matmi proceedings relating to such grant, the fact that it had been made without authority by the Minority Administration was specifically brought to the notice of the Ruler and the Ruler sanctioned with full knowledge of the character of the grant. Sub-rules (2) to (7) dealt with the procedure to be adopted and inquiry to be made when, during the course of matmi proceedings or otherwise, it came to the notice of any revenue officer or the Deewani Hazari Office or any other authority that a grant was originally made at any time during the above period of Minority Administration. The grant in the present case, was made on miti Jaith Sudi 7 Samvat 1893 during the period of Minority Administration and without the approval of the Resident. The grant was, therefore, to be deemed to be invalid ab initio. Consequently, no matmi, except a matmi sanctioned after 9th Feb., 37, could validate such a void ab initio grant. 10. It may be noted here that in the case of Thakur Jai Singh v. Thakur Sobhag Singh, AIR 1961 Rajasthan SC 1328 , the Full Bench of this Court, had struck down Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, on the ground that the Rules were not sanctioned by the Government and did not have the force of law. The Rajasthan Legislature enacted the Jaipur Matmi Rules (Validation) Act, 1961, which received the assent of the President on 26th July, 1961. This Act validated the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 and further declared that these rules shall be treated as being and as having been in "exiling Jagir Law" within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, for the purposes of that Act as well as of the Rajasthan Jagri Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 and any other law relating to Jagirs or Jagirdars. It may be mentioned that the Jaipur Matmi Rules (Validation) Act, 1961 only declared that Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, shall be deemed always to have the force of law and shall be treated as being "existing Jagir Law" within the meaning of the aforesaid two enactments, but, it did not purport to give retrospective operation to the Jaipur Matmi Rules (see Sobhag Singh v. Jaisingh, AIR 1968 SC 1328 . 11. 11. Reference may be made to Annexure-6, dated 9th Oct., 64, whereby the Government of Rajasthan in Revenue Department, conveyed the sanction of the Governor for appointment of Ram Swaroop respondent No. 1 as Chela to Late Ram Narain in respect of muafi lands specified therein on payment of matmi matabla amounting to Rs. 51.42 as recommended by the Board of Revenue. In this order, three categories of muafi lands were specified, namely: 1. Qasba Jaipur Kishanpole: Udak-Chahi 2 bighas 13 biswas Udak-Barani 3 bighas 8 biswas 2. Udak Jaipur Bhawani Shankarpura: Udak Chahi 3 bighas 16 biswas 3. Akodia, Tehsil - Chaksu : Bhog Chahi 19 bighas 19 biswas Bhog 5 bighas. It would be clear from Annexure-6 that the Government of Rajasthan sanctioned the matmi in respect of udak lands situated in Qasba Jaipur, Kishanpole. These lands were the lands granted by the Patta (Annex. I). Thus, since matmi was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 by the competent authority after 9th Feb., 37, the void ab initio grant made by the Minority Administration on Jeth Sudi 7 Samvat 1893 stood validated. 12. The character of the grant was described as Udak. It may be stated that in the definition of 'State-Grant" given in Rule 4(1) of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, "Udak" has been described as distinct State-Grant from bhog or other charitable or religious grant. It is thus clear that the Udak State-Grant in favour of respondent No. 1 was neither a bhog-grant and nor other charitable or religious grant. Reference may be made to a Divisiop Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in Tajuddin and others v. Badruddin, 1974 RRD 126 . The facts in that case were that the Ruler of former Jaipur State by Patta dated Shawan Sudi 4 Samvat 1856 granted 7 bighas agricultural land of Jaipur city situated adjacent to Moti Katla in "Punya" for the maintenance of a garden to Mirza Ziauddin. The Board of Revenue observed: The State grant used to be of different types. In the present case, the state grant of 7 bighas Kham was given to Mirza Ziauddin for maintenance of a garden and, therefore, it was in the form of 'Udak' or 'punya' as stated in the original patta. It is not a charitable or religious grant." 13. In the present case, the state grant of 7 bighas Kham was given to Mirza Ziauddin for maintenance of a garden and, therefore, it was in the form of 'Udak' or 'punya' as stated in the original patta. It is not a charitable or religious grant." 13. In "Rajasthan Shabad Kosh", First Part (Second Revised Edition), edited by Seeta Ram Lalas and published by Rajasthan Shodh Sansthan, the word 'udak' has been assigned the following meanings : 1 & ty] ikuh] lfyy fM0dks0 2 & 'kklu] iq.; o nku ls ekQh dh iznku dh xbZ Hkwfe fM0dks0 3 & ty ladYi ysdj nh xbZ oLrqA In Rajasthani-Hindi Shabdkosh, edited by Acharya Badri Prasad Sakaria & Prof. Bhoopati Ram Sakariya, the meanings assigned to the words 'udak' and 'udakbhom' are as under: mn;&1- 2- nku 3- fof/kor ladYi djds nku esa nh gqbZ Hkwfe] i'kq vkfn 4- jkT; dj ls eq~r buke ;k nku esa nh xbZ HkwfeA mnd&Hkkse&ladYi djds nh gqbZ nku dh HkwfeA Thus, there is no doubt that 'udak' state grant is a grant given out of charity by the grantor. It is bestowed out of charity by the grantor and it is clearly different from a grant made for charitable or religious purpose. Udak grant is not made on the condition that the subject-matter of the grant would be utilised by the grantee for a specified or unspecified charitable or religious purpose. It is on the other hand, a charitable gift emanating from charitable disposition mind of the grantor. The grant evidenced by patta (Annexure-I) which was validated by the matmi order (Annex. 6) was, therefore, not a grant made for any religious or charitable purpose. The grant was by way of charity for secular purposes. 14. We may here extract some of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 173 of 1986) on 21st Apr., 87 (Annex. 7). Hon'ble Israni, J., speaking for the Bench, observed: "The provisions of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act dearly show that the Devasthan Commissioner is not only empowered to superintend the administration but has also been empowered to carry out the provisions of this Act. 7). Hon'ble Israni, J., speaking for the Bench, observed: "The provisions of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act dearly show that the Devasthan Commissioner is not only empowered to superintend the administration but has also been empowered to carry out the provisions of this Act. Therefore, when the Commissioner, Devasthan, was of the view that the property involved is very valuable and it was necessary to hold proper enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, moreso, when respondent Ramswaroop himself gave in writing.that the property in dispute rr y be registered as public trust, we are of the opinion that he was justified in passing the order for fresh enquiry. Moreover, no prejudice is caused to the respondent Mahant Ramswaroop, who will have full chance to put his side before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan." 15. We may now crystallise the reasonings given by the Devasthan Commissioner in his decision dated 17th July, 1990 (Annex. 20) in holding the 'bagichi' (garden), houses and temple in the precincts called by him as 'Chhota Ramdwara' as public trust. The reasonings given are as follows:- 1. Had Ramballabh Ramsanehi been not an ascetic saint and holder of office pertaining to Shiva Temple, he would not have been considered worthy of being granted 'udak' gift. The land described as 'punya dharti' had been given to a celibate after purchasing it from Malies and in such circumstances, it could not have been granted for the personal or family use of the mahant. 2. Ramswaroop (present respondent No. 1) had himself made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, for registering 'Chhota Ramdwara' as public trust and in such circumstances, burden was not on the Assistant Commissioner to establish that it was a public trust. The contention that the application for registration of 'Chhota Ramdwara' was made under wrong legal advice, was not accepted and the subsequent application by Ramswaroop withdrawing the application for registration was held to be of no avail. 3. It was irrelevant for the purpose to take into account, the fact that this grant was not a bhog grant or the question as to which property would be resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act and which not. A label to the effect that the land was a jagir land was not necessary for its being property of a public trust. 4. A label to the effect that the land was a jagir land was not necessary for its being property of a public trust. 4. The fact that 'Shiva Temple' in the precincts was a small and not a big temple could not be made a ground by the Assistant Commissioner for separating the property from the temple. 5. The seat was of 'nihang' (celibate) saint and it was clear that Rani (Seventh Bhatwaniji) granted the precincts after constructing temple to a celibate Ramballabh and this was indicative of its public character. It was not correct to make a demarcation that some portion of the property was meant for personal purposes of the mahant and that it had no nexus with the Shiva Temple and Ramdwara. 6. It was correct that Devki Nandan had no favourable interest in the interests of the trust and was actuated by his personal interests but that did not make any difference as Ramswaroop had himself applied for registration of the public trust and he could not be permitted to change his own decision. 16. We may refer to the application dated 23rd July, 64, made by Ramswaroop respondent No. 1 to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur, which is on file No. 48/2 of 1964 of the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan. The application was made in Form No. 6, prescribed by Rule 17(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962. The application was in the matter of public trust Chhota Ramdwara. Ramswaroop described himself as the working trustee of the above public trust. The application was made under Section 17 of the Act for the registration of the Trust. The designation of the trust was given as 'Chhota Ramdwara, Mahaveer Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur". The origin (so far as known), nature and objects of the trust were not specified. The place principal office or the principal place of the business of the trust was specified as Mahaveer Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The mode of succession to the office of the trustee was mentioned as "hereditary according to matmi". In the details of immovable properties, Chhota Ramdwara building, along with its compound and the building in Tikkiwalon-ka-Mohalla were specified. The title-deeds pertaining to trust property were shown in possession of mahant Ramswaroop respondent No.1 and address of working trustee was also given. Mahant Ramswaroop signed the application as working trustee of the trust. In the details of immovable properties, Chhota Ramdwara building, along with its compound and the building in Tikkiwalon-ka-Mohalla were specified. The title-deeds pertaining to trust property were shown in possession of mahant Ramswaroop respondent No.1 and address of working trustee was also given. Mahant Ramswaroop signed the application as working trustee of the trust. Along with this application, one more application in Form No. 9 was presented for sanction to transfer by way of lease, 6000 square yards of land of Chhota Ramdwara by respondent No. 1 to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, read with rule 25 of the Rules. Upon receipt of the application from Ramswaroop for registration of public trust "Chhota Ramdwara", the Assistant Commissioner was required by Section 18 of the Act to make the inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining various facts mentioned in that section after giving a public notice, and on completion of the inquiry, he had to record his findings under Section 19 with the reasons therefor as to the matter mentioned in Section 18. 17. The application made by Ramswaroop to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur, in Form No. VI, contained a clear and unequivocal admission by him that "Chhota Ramdwara" was a public trust; that, he was its working trustee; that, the trust is known by the name of 'Chhota Ramdwara'; that its principal office or place of business was Mahaveer Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur; that, the mode of succession to the office of trustee was hereditary, according to matmi and that Chhota Ramdwara building with its compound and the building situated in Tikkiwalon-ka-Mohalla were the immovable properties. 18. It is well-settled that a party's admission as defined in Sections 17 to 20 of the Evidence Act, fulfilling the requirement of Section 21 thereof, is substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker, on the principle, "what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker, on the principle, "what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness-box or not and whether such party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case he made a statement contrary to those admissions. An admission insofar as facts are concerned would bind the maker of the admission but not in so far as it relates to question of law (see Nathoolal v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1954 SC 355 ; Banwaridas v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165 ; Bharat Singh v. Bhagirat, AIR 1966 SC 405 ; Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, AIR 1967 SC 341 ; Union of India v. Makesh Builders and Financers Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 409 ; Thiru John v. Subramhamayan, AIR 1977 SC 1724 ; and Ramji Deyawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Inveet Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085 . 19. It is true that on 3rd May, 65, Ramswaroop made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur, that it was on account of mistake that he had made an application for registration of Chhota Ramdwara as the documents were not available with him at that time. In this subsequent application, Ramswaroop stated that the aforesaid Ramdwara was not a public property and that it was his private property. 20. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether Ramswaroop has proved that the admissions made by him in his application dated 23rd July, 64, for registration of Chhota Ramdwara as public trust were untrue and also whether they related to question of law. Clearly the 'Udak' jagir in the instant case was a "State-Grant" within the meaning assigned to that term by Rule 4(1) of Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 and "Jagir Land" as defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, read with entry at Serial No. 32 of the First Schedule annexed thereto. State Grant was a grant only for the lifetime of the grantee and was to be renewed by sanctioning of 'matmi' (recognition of succession) in favour of such successor to a deceased grantee. If no matmi order was passed by the grantor or other competent authority the grant was resumed under Rule 16 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. Rules 4, 5 and 16 of the said Rules are quite clear and explicit on the point. 21. "Public Trust", according to Section 2(11) of the Act means an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both. In Deokinandan v. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133 , the Supreme Court laid down: 'The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter, they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former, the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter, they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment." 22. We have already held that the grant evidenced by patta (Annex-I) was not a grant made for any religious or charitable purpose. The grant was in fact made for the personal benefit of Swami Ramballabh Chela of Swami Ramjidas, Ramsanehi. Annexure-I clearly used the word, "Swami Ramballabh Chela Swami Ramjidas Ka Ramsanehi Ke Wastey" and they clearly go to show that it was a grant in favour and for the benefit of a particular individual of Ramsanehi sect and not in favour of a body of unascertainable beneficiaries belonging to Ramsanehi sect. Public trust properties are private properties dedicated permanently by a person in his private capacity for a public religious or charitable purpose. A public trust cannot be resumed by the State or by the creator of the trust. 23. It is not the case of the appellant or even of the Devasthan Commissioners that the grantee Swami Ramballabh or any of his descendant chelas created any public trust of the land granted under the patta (Annex. I). A public trust cannot be resumed by the State or by the creator of the trust. 23. It is not the case of the appellant or even of the Devasthan Commissioners that the grantee Swami Ramballabh or any of his descendant chelas created any public trust of the land granted under the patta (Annex. I). The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is right that the grantee of an udak State Grant resumable on his death cannot in law create a public trust of the State Grant. A jagir land could not legally be made subject-matter of public trust by the jagirdar. 24. Thus neither, the grantor made a State-Grant in favour of any deity or in favour of a math by the patta (Annex. I), nor a State-Grantee or Jagirdar of an 'udak' personal grant could, in law himself, create a valid public religious or charitable trust in view of the resumable character of the State-Grant on his death. The admissions contained in the application for registration made by Ramswaroop to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, are thus established by the respondent No. 1 to be untrue and also in relation to an invalid trust in case the trust is taken to be created by the grantee and not the grantor. A lifetime grantee of the State-Grant lacked competence to make a permanent dedication of the property for a public religious or charitable purposes. 25. It might have been that the udak grant was made to Swami Ramballabh out of pious consideration that the Swami was an ascetic saint, but that does not mean that it was made in favour of any deity or any math or asthal. The grant no doubt originated out of pioty, but, not for subserving public religious or charitable objects in contradistinction with the private benefit or use of the Swami. Had it been a 'bhog-grant', the very nature of the grant would have made the grant in favour of the deity and then the question which would have survived for decision would have only been whether the temple was a private or a public temple. The same might have been the position if the dedication would have been to a public "math" dedicated for the use of ascetics generally or of a particular sect or cult. The nature and object of the State-Grant were in this sense quite relevant. The same might have been the position if the dedication would have been to a public "math" dedicated for the use of ascetics generally or of a particular sect or cult. The nature and object of the State-Grant were in this sense quite relevant. There might exist a small Shiva-Temple within the precincts, but, that alone does not make the grant, a grant to the deity. Much less there is any finding that Shiva-Temple was a public temple. There is not even a mention of any Shiva Temple in the patta (Annex-I) and there is no evidence to show that any Shiva Temple was constructed by Seventh Bhataniji within the precincts before making the grant. 26. What clearly seems to have led Ramswaroop to make an application on 3rd July 64 for registration of 'Chhota Ramdwara' as public trust was that his Guru, Ram Narain had expired and the matter regarding recognition of Ramswaroop as Chela of Ram Narain was then pending consideration and decision by competent authorities. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 had come into force. The jagirs in Village-Akodia was resumed by notification dated 21st June 63, with effect from 1st July, 1963. These facts and circumstances made Ramswaroop apprehensive of his losing the property in question and to safeguard against that, he made the application for registration of Chhota Ramdwara as public trust. No sooner he was appointed as Chela of Late Ram Narain by order dated 9th Oct., 64 (Annex. 6). Ramswaroop made application on 3rd May, 65, to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, withdrawing his application dated 23rd July,'64, and stating that Chhota Ramdwara was not a public property. As the succession-matter was pending, Ramswaroop might not have been at that time in possession of the patta (Annex. I), and might also not be knowing of its contents. In any event, the admissions contained in the application dated 23rd July, 64, moved to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, amply stands established to be false and untrue and can be held to be even based on incorrect understanding of the jagir law pertaining to State-Grants in force. The presumption of truth attaching to the admissions stands rebutted by respondent No. 1. 27. Clearly, there was error apparent on the face of the record in the decision dated 17th July, 90 (Annex. The presumption of truth attaching to the admissions stands rebutted by respondent No. 1. 27. Clearly, there was error apparent on the face of the record in the decision dated 17th July, 90 (Annex. 20) of the Devasthan Commissioner, holding the bagichi, houses and temple of Shivaji in the precincts called by him as 'Chhota Ramdwara' as a public trust within the meaning assigned to that expression by the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. The learned Single Judge rightly allowed SB Civil Writ petition No. 4786 of 1990, filed by Ramswaroop respondent No. I and rightly quashed the order (Annex. 20) of the Commissioner, Devasthan, and further rightly restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, dated 8th May, 89 (Annex. 19). 28. Consequently, this special appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Special appeal dismissed. *******