Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 15 (RAJ)

Mahant Tar Dass v. Devasthan Comm.

2008-01-03

N.P.GUPTA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition was initially filed by two petitioners against three respondents. However, during pendency of the writ petition private respondent No. 3 died, and the petitioner No. 1 also expired, and therefore, their names had been deleted. 2. The petition seeks to challenge the orders Annexure-7 and 8 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan on 7.11.1985, and Commissioner, Devasthan dated 23.6.1996 respectively. 3. The brief facts are that application was filed by the deceased private respondent before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan praying for registration of the temple and attached properties as public trust; along with that application a proposed trust deed was also filed. It was alleged that the temple was constructed by his ancestors, and Mahant was appointed therein, whom payments were being made for worship, and upkeep of the temple, and 300 Bighas of land was also donated to the temple. Jamabandi in this regard have also been produced. On this application public notice was issued, whereon the original writ petitioners submitted objections, claiming the temple and the property to be their personal property, and prayed for it being declared as their personal property. Various documents were filed by both the parties, which documents included certain previous communications/ orders of the State, declining the requirement of registration, on the ground of the temple being personal property of the then Mahant. The parties also led oral evidence, and the learned Assistant Commissioner vide order Annexure-7 found, that there is material on record, and as a result of enquiry it is established, that the temple in question and 300 Bighas of land was given by the State to the present writ petitioners' ancestors for worship, that the temple is not the personal property of the present writ petitioners. It was also found that the applicant Hanuwant Singh has not been able to establish his right, title or interest, and it was found that the temple is a public trust having attached with it 276 Bighas 14 biswas of land recorded in the name of temple through Pujari, mode of succession of the working trustee is hereditary by way of discipleship from Guru to disciple. It was also found that other trustees have not been nominated, and therefore, the working trustee was directed to nominate them now, keeping in view the public interests. It was also found that other trustees have not been nominated, and therefore, the working trustee was directed to nominate them now, keeping in view the public interests. The object of the trust was found to be public worship, having been constructed by the ancestors of the then Jagirdar, and having been entrusted to the ancestors of the present petitioners for worship, and management, having the object of fulfilment of public interest. With this it was directed that the temple is required to be registered as public trust, a certificate in the name of working trustee was ordered to be issued, and the working trustee Mahant Tardas was directed to comply with the other requirements of Section 17 after one month. Appeals were filed by Hanuwant Singh and the present petitioners against this order, which had been dismissed vide Annexure-8. 4. Assailing these orders it was contended, that from a look at Annexure- 1, which is a document of Samvat 1934, it is clear, that the temple was of course constructed by the then State, but was given over to the ancestors of the present writ petitioner. Then, the communications of the State being Annexure-3, Annexure-4, and other documents produced before the Assistant Commissioner were also relied upon, to contend, that therein the temple was recognised to be the personal property of Mahant Tardas, after it being the personal property of Sri Hanumandas Tardas Mahant, and that being the position, it could not be said to be a public trust, requiring to be registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 5. I have considered the submissions. A look at the judgment of the learned Assistant Commissioner does show that the learned Asstt. Commissioner has considered the evidence of the parties thread bare. Likewise, the learned Commissioner has considered the evidence rather re appreciated further thread bare, and therefrom it transpires, that the petitioner Tandas himself had admitted that the temple was constructed by ancestors of Hanuwant Singh. Likewise, it was also deposed by his witness that the temple was constructed some 30-35 years back by Taparia, and that it is established from the evidence, led on the side of the present writ petitioners, that Mahant was appointed by offering him "Chadar" by villagers of 210 villages collectively. Likewise, it was also deposed by his witness that the temple was constructed some 30-35 years back by Taparia, and that it is established from the evidence, led on the side of the present writ petitioners, that Mahant was appointed by offering him "Chadar" by villagers of 210 villages collectively. Thus, the findings on the question about the nature of the trust, the property being not the personal property of the petitioners, or their ancestors, in the sense claimed, are pure findings of fact recorded by the learned authorities below. This is one aspect of the matter. The other more important aspect of the matter, as I found is, that a look at Annexure-2 produced by the petitioner also shows, that the agricultural lands were recorded in the name of the temple (deity), and Tardas was described as Pujari, though additionally it was mentioned as " efUnj Jh Bkdqjth c ,sgreke&[kkrsnkj iqtkjh rkjnkl psyk guqekunkl Lokeh " but then he was described as Pujari. Likewise even in Annexure-3 the possession. of the person concerned was found to be of Pujari. It is required to be grasped, that ownership and Pujariship are two independent and distinct capacities. In the sequence of things as they have emerged, even from a look at Annexure-1, it is clear, that it recites that the temple was constructed by the State on the hillock, which was handed-over to Swami Pokardasji, and for upkeep and worship thereof a grant of Rs. 2/- per month i.e. Rs. 24/- for the year was purportedly commenced vide this document Annexure- 1, and the grantee was expected to maintain and manage the temple. Of course, it is mentioned in it that it was donated, but then, obviously it is clear, that it is donated for the purpose of being managed, and not with an intention to pass the title of the property, as if the title were to be passed, there would have been no occasion for making further grant for management and upkeep of the temple. This is a million dollar circumstance against the petitioner. Then, I find still more important circumstance, as is referred to by the learned Assistant Commissioner at page-3 of the order, that the deceased petitioner Tardas had given power of attorney in favour of petitioner Tandas, and in that power of attorney also, Tardas has described himself as Pujari only. This is a million dollar circumstance against the petitioner. Then, I find still more important circumstance, as is referred to by the learned Assistant Commissioner at page-3 of the order, that the deceased petitioner Tardas had given power of attorney in favour of petitioner Tandas, and in that power of attorney also, Tardas has described himself as Pujari only. Since this was reference made in the course of recording contention of one of the parties, I requested learned counsel for the petitioner to make available for perusal of the Court, the power of attorney, if available, and the learned counsel was kind enough to make available for perusal of the Court the photo state copy of the power of attorney, and from perusal thereof I find, that therein Tardas has described himself as Pujari, and nothing has been recited therein to show him to be the owner. 6. On the face of this admission of Tardas, coupled with other circumstances found by the learned authorities below, and narrated above, in my view, the impugned orders do not require any interference. 7. It is significant to note that all said and done the temple has been found to be public trust, and the property has been found to be attached to the trust, and Tardas has been found to be working trustee. It has been found that the course of succession is by discipleship from Guru to disciple. In such circumstances, the actual possession and management of the temple, and the property attached with the temple, does continue with the working trustee. At the same time while so working in the capacity of working trustee he has to manage them keeping in view the public interest. In other words the petitioners have not been ousted of their status of Pujari, rather have been made working trustee. 8. Thus, the net result of the aforesaid discussion is that I do not find any force in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******