Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 949 (RAJ)

Sajjan Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-24

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-By the instant public interest writ petition the petitioners have prayed that the State of Rajasthan, Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur and the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 respectively be directed to take over the management of the temple of Thakurji Shri Madan Gopal Ji situated in front of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur and to evict the Non-petitioners No. 4 to 9 forthwith from the management and premises of the said temple. The petitioners have further sought direction to appoint a committee of management for managing and supervising the affairs of the temple in question in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. The other ancillary prayers have also been made. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the erstwhile ruler of Indian State of Jaipur on or about year 1728 constructed the temple of Thakurji Shri Madan Gopal Ji situated in front of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur and for its Seva Puja granted muafi land and further took management of the temple from Shri Shiva Kishore Deo Goswami and entrusted it to the Charity Department on 211.1943. Thereafter the State of Rajasthan handed over the management of the said temple to Shri Sadhan Kishore Goswami, son of Shri Shiva Kishore Goswami vide order dated 09.07.1953 with certain conditions and according to Condition No. 4 repair of the temple will be carried out after obtaining proper sanction from Devasthan Department and as per Condition No. 5 the said department was further authorised to make checking and supervision from time to time. The said temple is in the category of Government Supurdgi Temple, mention of which has been made in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 27.04.1981 in Schedule Ga at item No. 10. Non-petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 claim themselves descendent of Shri Shiva Kishore Deo Goswami and are managing the temple but according to the petitioners, there are several complaints of mismanagement, misconduct and apart from that, they have been convicted also. Many devotees made complaints to the Devasthan Department and Devasthan Department start giving notice from 11.05.1983 and last notice was given on 24.07.2004 but no step for taking over the management was taken by the State Government. 3. The State Government Non-petitioner Nos. Many devotees made complaints to the Devasthan Department and Devasthan Department start giving notice from 11.05.1983 and last notice was given on 24.07.2004 but no step for taking over the management was taken by the State Government. 3. The State Government Non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have filed reply to the writ petition admitting the fact of passing of the Government orders dated 09.07.1953 and 27.04.1981. They further submitted that the aforesaid temple was earlier registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act on 20.01.1971 but the said entry was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur vide its order dated 06.03.1982 on the ground that for Government Supurdgi Temple no registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act is necessary. It has also been stated by the State Government that a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction is pending in the civil Court. A copy of the plaint placed alongwith the reply is annexed as Annexure R-2. 4. The Respondents No. 4, 5, and 8 have filed separate reply and taken objection that the petitioners Sajjan Devi and Ram Singh Chauhan are closely related to tenant Gopal Singh of the temple and the Public Interest Litigation has been filed with ulterior motive to help him in the litigation with regard to eviction/demolition/ removal of unauthorized construction, therefore, the same is not maintainable. On merit is has been submitted that the temple was constructed by His Highness Jai Singh First and, thereafter, the temple and its property was donated to the great grand father of the private respondents and the temple is hereditary and further the Government has wrongly included the same in the Government Supurdgi Temple category without any notice to them, therefore, the same is void. They have further denied the allegations of mismanagement. They have also filed a copy of the civil suit as Annexure R-5. 5. The submission of Shri Mathur, the Counsel for the petitioners is that having incurred disqualification on account of conviction, the Respondents No. 4, 5 and 8 have no right to manage the temple and the Government may be directed to act in accordance with Section 53 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Shri Mathur has also submitted that the respondents are either damaging or alienating the property of deity, for which they have no right. Shri Mathur has also submitted that the respondents are either damaging or alienating the property of deity, for which they have no right. It is further submitted that as per Government order dated 09.07.1953 they have not given even right to repair without proper sanction. Therefore, the property which belongs to deity be saved from damage and alienation by restraining the respondents from managing the temple. 6. The submission of Shri Lokesh Sharma, Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioners have no locus standi to file P.I.L., otherwise also the temple is hereditary temple and the same is being managed properly. 7. The submission of the State Government is that in view of the Notification dated 27.04.1981, certainly it is a State Government control supurdgi temple which does not require any registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act and private respondents are bound by the conditions of the order dated 09.07.1953. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 9. The preliminary objection of the non-petitioners regarding locus standi of petitioner to file PIL is of no substance as religious feelings of public at large involve in managing the affairs of the temple in dignified manner. 10. A bare perusal of the contents of the plaint as annexed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-5 by the private Respondents No. 4, 5 and 8, reveals that the said civil suit is for declaration to the effect that the Government has nothing to do with the management of the temple of Thakurji Shri Madan Gopal Ji, the Notification dated 27.04.1981 is void and ineffective and permanent injunction is to the effect that the temple is hereditary, of which Plaintiff No. 2 is the Mahant and the Government and its officials be restrained from interfering with the possession, management and control of the temple. In the civil suit the respondents have claimed that the said temple is hereditary temple and further the said Notification dated 27.04.1981 whereby the property has been included in the Government Supurdgi Temple category was issued without any notice to them. At bar it is stated that the said civil suit is still pending adjudication. In the civil suit the respondents have claimed that the said temple is hereditary temple and further the said Notification dated 27.04.1981 whereby the property has been included in the Government Supurdgi Temple category was issued without any notice to them. At bar it is stated that the said civil suit is still pending adjudication. It has also been further stated at bar that an order of status quo has been passed in the appeal arising out of the temporary injunction proceedings but neither copy of the same has been placed on record nor the same has been shown to us. If that being so, then also the said order of status quo is with regard to continuance of the management of the temple with the private respondents. 11. We refrain ourselves from dealing with the contentions on merit of misconduct/disqualification, Notification dated 27.04.1981 and the nature of office held by Non-petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 8, which may effect the decision in the civil suit either way. We also do not want to express any opinion on the point whether the provision of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act are applicable or not. 10.12. No gift deed of the temple and its property in favour of the great grand father of the private respondents by Maharaja of Jaipur has been placed on record and from the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record, one thing is clear that the respondents are managing the same under the Government order dated 09.07.1953 (Annexure-4). Otherwise also, in such circumstances the property belongs to deity which is a perpetual minor and it is not permissible for the respondents to damage and alienate the same for personal gain. The said Government order dated 09.07.1953 even does not give right of repair without proper sanction, therefore, the property of deity cannot be allowed to be permitted to alienate or damage, otherwise the religious feelings of the devotees will be hurt. The order dated 09.07.1953 is as follows:- “Copy of letter No. F. 94(94) GA-II/53 from the Dy. Secretary GAD Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt., Rajasthan, Jaipur. Sub: Application of Shri Sadhan Kishore Goswami for handing over the temple of Shri Madan Gopal Ji, Jaipur to him. Ref : Your No. DRA/1/440 dated 20.05.1953. The order dated 09.07.1953 is as follows:- “Copy of letter No. F. 94(94) GA-II/53 from the Dy. Secretary GAD Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt., Rajasthan, Jaipur. Sub: Application of Shri Sadhan Kishore Goswami for handing over the temple of Shri Madan Gopal Ji, Jaipur to him. Ref : Your No. DRA/1/440 dated 20.05.1953. I am directed to convey sanction of the His Highness the Rajpramukh to the management of the temple of Shri Madan Gopal Ji, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur which was under the management of the Charity Department being handed over to Shri Sadhan Kishore Dev as recommended by you on the following conditions:- 1. Funds accumulated so far out of the savings from the temple will be spent after obtaining prior sanction of the Government. 2. Sewa Puja and Bhog Raj arrangements for the deity will be carried out satisfactorily as before. 3. Shri Sadhan Kishore Deo will keep an up-to-date account of receipt and expenditure of the temple. 4. Repair of the temple will be carried out by the Goswami after obtaining proper sanction. 5. Necessary checking and supervision will be made from time to time by the Devasthan Department. Copy Forwarded to the Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur/Jodhpur For Information. Office of the Commissioner Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. No. DRA/1/157/6172 D/-09.07.1953 Copy forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur Division for information and necessary action with reference to his letter No. 580 dated 23.04.1953. Commissioner (Jivaraj Singh)” 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we partly allow the Public Interest Litigation and direct the Respondents No. 4 to 11 not to sale, transfer, bequeath or mortgage the property of the temple. The respondents are also further restrained from damaging the property of the temple. As regards repair/construction, it shall not be carried out without proper sanction, checking and supervision from time to time by Devasthan Department as mentioned in the order dated 09.07.1953.