Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1698 (RAJ)

Mahant Balak Das v. State of Rajasthan

2004-11-30

SHASHI KANT SHARMA, Y.R.MEENA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant has filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Deptt. under section 21 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') claiming that the appellant is the working trustee of the registered public trust Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Maharaj, Gaddi Baba Dayal Das Ji Maharaj, Village Hudia Kalan, Tehsil Behror, Distt, Alwar. After an enquiry, order dated 7.1.1987 has been passed by which entry has been made to the effect that in place of Mahant Kanhad Das, Mahant Balak Das will be his successor. In support of that, Annexure-1 has been flied. This entry has been challenged by the respondent in 1997 before the Commissioner Devasthan Deptt. and he has remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan. Now the matter is pending before him. 2. The case of the petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was that once entry had been made under section 21 of the Act and that entry has not been challenged within six months, no appeal would lie before the Commissioner and a suit could be filed in the civil court for cancellation or modification of the entry made u/s. 21 of the Act. 3. Learned Single Judge instead of appreciating this aspect, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the matter is pending before the competent authority and that is yet to be decided and there being further remedy of appeal, no interference is called for. 4. The facts are not in dispute that after the death of Mahant Kanhad Das, Balak Das petitioner-appellant has moved an application for entering his name in the register in place of Mahant Kanhad Das. That order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Deptt. in the year 1987 and that has not been challenged within six months. In that case, civil suit under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act is the only remedy for cancellation or modification of the entry, which reads for ready reference, as under : "22. Civil Suit against entries made under Section 21. in the year 1987 and that has not been challenged within six months. In that case, civil suit under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act is the only remedy for cancellation or modification of the entry, which reads for ready reference, as under : "22. Civil Suit against entries made under Section 21. - (1) Any working trustee or person having interest in the 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 Section 21, institute a suit in civil court to have such entry cancelled or modified. (2) In every such suit the civil court shall give notice to the State Government through the Assistant Commissioner and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit. (3) 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." 5. When the entry made under Section 21 of the Act has not been challenged within six months from the date of the entry, the only remedy remains to file a civil suit for cancellation or modification of such entry. In view of this fact, the Commissioner Devsthan has no power to entertain any application requiring modification or cancellation in the entry made under Section 21 of the Act. When he has no jurisdiction to canoe or modify the entry he can not give any direction to the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan. 6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Commissioner Devsthan, who has sent the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh order and also quash the proceedings pending before the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan in Pursuant of the directions of the Commissioner Devsthan Deptt. 7. However, it is made clear that if the respondents have any grievance, they can file a civil suit in the civil court in accordance with law as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. *******