Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 632 (RAJ)

Partap Ram S/o Ramu Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-04-20

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of petitioners that this writ petition for Public Interest Litigation may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued against the respondents in following manners. a) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, and the order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-9) passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Devsthan Department may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction further same may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the respondent may kindly be directed to release all kind of the withhold amount which is deposited against the compensation of the acquisition of the land of non-government temples of any part/region of the State and further the State Authority may kindly be directed to grant the compensation against any acquisition to the non-Government Temples personally or their trust which is working for management and administration of the temple. c) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur in pursuance of the award no.79 dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure-6) against the acquisition of the land of Shri Mahadev Ji Temple (Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji) at Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan may kindly be released in favour of the Temple or the Trust working for management of the temple, the interest upon such amount from the date of award to till realization may also be awarded. d) That by an appropriate writ or direction may kindly be issued and respondent Devsthan Commissioner may kindly be directed to submit the entire details before this Hon’ble Court of the deposit amount in his account in terms of the compensation against the acquisition of land of non-government temple and the details of the land which is purchased for any temple according to the orders dated 19.01.2015 and 25.02.2015. e) That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed. e) That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed. f) That the present graves the liberty to raise any other point at the time of hearing in the court.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is working as President of a Trust, namely, Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir (Matha), Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, District Jodhpur and the said trust was registered as Public Trust vide order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1959’). After the said registration, the management of the aforesaid Temple was handled by the Trust Committee, including the bank account and audit report. 2.1. Thereafter, on 26.06.2020, a Gazette Notification was published under the National Highway Act, 1956 for construction of Ring Road around the Jodhpur City, and pursuant to the same, the land acquisition proceedings were also initiated, as regards certain lands, including the Trust land and compensation award was also passed on 25.05.2021 by the concerned authority, in lieu of the said acquisition of lands, but as regards the Trust, the awarded compensation amount was not transferred in its account. 2.2. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for release of the compensation amount towards acquisition of the Trust land. In the said application, an order dated 19.01.2015 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the compensation amount would be released and deposited into the account of the respondent-Commissioner of the Devsthan Department. 2.3. A Committee, as mentioned in the order, was already in place for the purpose of utilizing the compensation amount. This Committee would follow the necessary legal procedures and make recommendations for the allotment of alternative land to the Temple whose land has been acquired. Furthermore, instead of keeping the compensation amount, the concerned municipal or local bodies will purchase alternative land(s) using the funds so deposited in the Devsthan Department's account, for the purpose of allotment of such land to the owners of the land(s) so acquired. Similar order was also passed by the respondent Devsthan Department on 25.02.2015. 2.4. Furthermore, instead of keeping the compensation amount, the concerned municipal or local bodies will purchase alternative land(s) using the funds so deposited in the Devsthan Department's account, for the purpose of allotment of such land to the owners of the land(s) so acquired. Similar order was also passed by the respondent Devsthan Department on 25.02.2015. 2.4. Thus, being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.01.2015 & 25.02.2015, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents' order to withhold the compensation amount, payable towards acquisition of the Temple's khatedari land, is arbitrary and illegal. It was also argued that once the compensation award has been passed, the Temple is fully entitled to receive the said amount. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Trust is registered under the Act of 1959 for the management and administration of the Temple, and therefore, the said Temple should not be considered as a government-administered temple. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that under the Act of 1959, the Devsthan Commissioner is the supervisory authority for the management and control of government Temples or the Temples that are receiving grants from the State. However, in the present case, the Temple is not managed by the government, so the supervisory power of the Devsthan Commissioner as regards the said Temple are not exercisable. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the temple or trust is not receiving any grants or funds from the government, and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 and guidelines regarding government control and administration do not apply to the petitioner trust or temple. Therefore, the orders in question are not justified in law. 3.4. Leaned counsel also submitted that the deity of the temple is a perpetual minor and any kind of act against the interests and rights of the deity cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of such submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Through Devotee Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 396/2020 & other connected matter, decided on 04.11.2022). 4. In support of such submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Through Devotee Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 396/2020 & other connected matter, decided on 04.11.2022). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that as per Section 37 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner of the Devasthan Department, being the Treasurer of the charitable endowments of the Rajasthan State, the compensation amount, in lieu of land acquisition is required to be deposited with the Department as a security for purchasing the property that includes the Temple idol. 4.1. It was further submitted that as per the impugned order, a Committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of District Collector, and a direction was issued to allot the land to be purchased out of the compensation amount so deposited with the department to the temple on the recommendations of the said Committee. 4.2. It was also submitted that since the Temple is a perpetual minor and the pujari/trustee is a de facto guardian thereof, therefore the pujari/trustee is authorized only to the extent of managing the Temple's property and falls under the definition of Section 11 of the Hindi Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the petitioner is not legally entitled to receive the compensation amount. 4.3. It was further submitted that the Government of Rajasthan has issued a circular dated 11.06.2020, in which it has been specifically stated that the trust/pujari is not authorized to obtain the acquisition amount in lieu of land acquisition so made and the impugned decision was taken in larger public interest so as to safeguard the Doli lands. It was also submitted that the said circular was not challenged by the petitioner in present PIL. 4.4. Learned Counsel for the Devasthan Department in addition to above submissions, submitted that the Devasthan Department has still not received the acquisition amount from the competent authority. 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. 4.4. Learned Counsel for the Devasthan Department in addition to above submissions, submitted that the Devasthan Department has still not received the acquisition amount from the competent authority. 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner is working as President of a registered Trust, namely, Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir (Matha), Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, District Jodhpur. On 26.06.2020, a Gazette Notification was published under the National Highway Act, 1956 for construction of Ring Road around the Jodhpur City, and pursuant to the same, the land acquisition proceedings were also initiated, as regards certain lands, including the Trust land and compensation award was also passed on 25.05.2021 by the concerned authority, in lieu of the said acquisition of lands, but as regards the Trust, the awarded amount was not transferred in its account. 7. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for release of the compensation amount of acquisition of Trust land in its favour. The Land Acquisition Officer vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 stated that the compensation amount shall be released in the account of the respondent-Commissioner Devasthan Department and subsequently, the Devasthan Department vide impugned order dated 25.02.2015 also passed the similar order. 8. This Court further observes that the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a circular dated 11.06.2020 (P.9 (34) Raj-6/2019/101) wherein it is clearly stated under both the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of Temple land is not receivable by the pujari/trustee, who acts as the caretaker of the land; instead, the compensation amount is required to be deposited with the concerned department, which in the present case is the respondent Devsthan Department. Relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced as hereunder:- 9. This Court also observes that as per the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has no right to claim the compensation amount for acquisition of the Temple land, and thus, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned orders. 10. Relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced as hereunder:- 9. This Court also observes that as per the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has no right to claim the compensation amount for acquisition of the Temple land, and thus, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned orders. 10. This Court further observes that in view of the above, and particularly, the afore-quoted circular, the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the land acquisition of the temple because it is evident that the amount has to remain in the account of the Devasthan Commissioner. Furthermore, the land was to be purchased from the concerned entities such as the Nigam, Panchayat, and Development Authority, for allotment thereto to the Temple as compensation in lieu of the acquisition in question. This entire process was carried out by the Collector as Chairman of the Committee, and four other members, which is perfectly justified in law. 10.1. The said Committee was comprising of District Collector (as Chairman), and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Executive Officer/Secretary of Development Authority/Executive Engineer of Housing Board/Sub Divisional Officer, Officer of the Accounts Services posted in the District, as nominated by the District Collector and Concerned Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department. 10.2 This Court further observes that the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the respondent-Devsthan Department clearly stated as to how the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple land in question is to be utilized. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced as hereunder:- 11. This Court also observes that the Devsthan Commissioner was appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1959 and the State Government may specify the duties and functions of the Commissioner by any General and Special Orders in the territories to which this Act extends, and that, the State Government issued the aforementioned Circular dated 11.06.2020, which requires deposition of the compensation amount in lieu of the acquisition of the Temple land in the account of the concerned department, which in the present case is the respondent-Devsthan department. Therefore, the compensation amount in question to remain in account of Commissioner of Devsthan Department is justified in law, which otherwise, as prescribed, would serve the interests of the Temple/Trust, inasmuch as the said amount of compensation, would be utilized, as per the recommendations of the Committee. Sec. 7 - Devasthan Commissioner: 1. Therefore, the compensation amount in question to remain in account of Commissioner of Devsthan Department is justified in law, which otherwise, as prescribed, would serve the interests of the Temple/Trust, inasmuch as the said amount of compensation, would be utilized, as per the recommendations of the Committee. Sec. 7 - Devasthan Commissioner: 1. The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint an officer to be called the Devasthan Commissioner, who, in addition to other duties and functions imposed on him by or under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall subject to the general and special orders of the State Government superintend the administration and carry out the provision of this Act through the territories to which this Act extends. 2. The Commissioner shall be corporation sole by the name of the Devasthan Commissioner of the State of Rajasthan, shall as such have perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in his corporate name. 11.1. This Court further observes in Chapter IX of the Act of 1959 “Control over Public Trust”, it is stated that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner have power to call, return, statements, account or report from the working trustee or other trustee of, or from any person connected with a public trust, which shows that the said authorities work for the benefits and interests of the public trust(s) and therefore, in the given circumstances, pujari/trustee cannot claim control of the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple land. 12. This Court also observes that as per Section 37 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is deemed to be a Treasurer of a Charitable Endowments in the State of Rajasthan. As per the aforequoted circular, the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the Temple’s land is required to be deposited in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. Therefore, any act of the Commissioner as Treasurer would not be prejudicial to the rights and interests of such Temple/Trust. As per the aforequoted circular, the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the Temple’s land is required to be deposited in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. Therefore, any act of the Commissioner as Treasurer would not be prejudicial to the rights and interests of such Temple/Trust. For ready reference the said Section 37 of the Act of 1959 is reproduced as hereunder:- “Sec. 37 - Commissioner to be Treasurer of Charitable Endowments: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (Central Act VI of 1890), the Commissioner shall be deemed to be the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for the State of Rajasthan appointed under the provisions of the said Act and the property vesting in the Treasurer before the date on which this Act comes into force shall be deemed to vest in the Commissioner as the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments, and the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the Commissioner as the treasurer of Charitable Endowments appointed under the said Act.” 12.1. This Court further observes that the Commissioner is deemed to be a Treasurer of the charitable endowments in the State of Rajasthan and definition of the ‘charitable endowments’ as contained in Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1959, reads as under:- “(3) “Charitable endowment" means all property given or endowed for the benefit of. or used as of right by, the community or any section thereof for the support or maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or section; such as resthouses, pathshalas, schools and colleges, houses for feeding the poor and institutions for the advancement of education, medical relief and public health or other objects of a like nature and includes the institution concerned;” 12.2. This Court also observes that the Temple in question is registered as a Public Trust and the definition of ‘Public Trust’ as contained in Section 2 (11) of the Act of 1959 reads as under:- “(11) “Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or chartable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both;” 12.3. This Court further observes that the Temple in question is a registered public trust, further the term ‘charitable endowment’ is covered under the above-said definition of ‘Public Trust’, and the Commissioner, as per Section 37 of the Act of 1959, acts as the Treasurer of the Temple receiving charitable endowment. This Court further observes that the Commissioner is having control as Treasurer over the said endowment, and furthermore, the Temple (deity) is a perpetual minor and is a registered public trust, the petitioner cannot claim control in regard to any compensation payable in lieu of the land acquisition of the temple in question, as it is the duty of the State through Commissioner of the respondent-Devsthan Department, to ensure protection of rights and interests of the Temple. 12.4. This Court also observes that the State Government is the best authority to protect the right of the temple and in particular, under the Act of 1959, the Commissioner, being a Treasurer is empowered to exercise its control over the Temple and also to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the Temple land. 13. This Court also observes that the entire exercise carried out by the respondents is aimed at protecting and safeguarding the Temple land and was done in the larger public interest. The orders in question clearly demonstrate the lawful manner in which the compensation amount is being proposed to be utilized for the benefit of the Temple, whose land has been acquired pursuant to the proceedings in question. 14. This Court further observes that as per the settled proposition of law, the Temple (deity) is a perpetual minor and the pujari/trustee acts only as its caretaker and thus, the compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple’s land has to remain in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, who in turn, would utilize the same for purchase of alternate land as per the decision of the Committee, and such land after being purchased would be allotted back to the Temple, thus, completely protecting and safeguard its rights and interests. Hence, the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner does not render any assistance to his case, more particularly, when due to the custodian role of the respondent-Devsthan Department, no prejudice is being caused to the Temple and the deity. 15. Hence, the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner does not render any assistance to his case, more particularly, when due to the custodian role of the respondent-Devsthan Department, no prejudice is being caused to the Temple and the deity. 15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and afore-quoted circular as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present PIL Petition. 16. Consequently, the present petition (PIL) is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.