JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final hearing.

2. On 13th January, 2023, this Court had heard the learned counsel for Petitioner on grant of interim relief and the matter was adjourned for further hearing. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 3rd February, 2023, 22nd February, 2023 and 2nd March, 2023 when the learned counsel for the respective parties were heard at length by this Court for final disposal by consent.

3. As the aforesaid petitions raise common issues, the petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the common judgment and order of rejection dated 24th November, 2022 passed by the District Judge – 3, Ahmednagar in Trust Civil Application No.1 of 2009, Trust Civil Application No.2 of 2009 and Trust Civil Application No.3 of 2009.

4. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.305 of 2023 is Vijay Arjun Bhagat, who is the Applicant in Trust Civil Application No.3 of 2009, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.306 of 2023 is Arjun Kisan Bhagat, who is the Applicant in Trust Civil Application No.1 of 2009, Arjun Kisan Bhagat is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.316 of 2023, which challenges the order of the District Judge upholding the order dated 19th November 2008 of the Joint Charity Commissioner allowing Scheme Application No.1 of 2008. Writ Petition No.558 of 2023 has been instituted by one Ramdas son of Rakmaji Jadhav, challenging the impugned order dated 26th November 2022, passed below Emergency Application No.00 of 2022 and the order dated 30th November 2022, passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2022, below Exhibits-1 and 13. This Writ Petition i.e., Writ Petition No.558 of 2023 challenges the orders staying the effect and operation of the common judgment and order dated 24th November, 2022 pending the challenge in appeal before this Court. As the other Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal, learned counsel for parties agree that it is not necessary to render a decision in Writ Petition No.558 of 2023.

5. The subject matter of the petition is a temple of Shri Jagdamba Tuljapurchi Devi, situated at Burahannagar, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar. Revision applications were preferred by Arjun Kisan Bhagat and Vijay Arjun Bhagat under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act (for short “Trust Act”) seeking to challenge the order of registration of trust, shown as registered bearing registration No. PTR- A/327 and the framing of scheme in respect of the said temple.

6. The issues arising for consideration are as regards the creation of the public trust- whether valid and legal, nature of the temple– whether private or public, and whether the property is property of public trust or private property. For the reasons indicated hereinafter, in my opinion, the public trust had been validly created by complying with the provisions of the Trust Act, the temple was a public temple, which is evident from the long user by the public as a matter of right and the subject property is the property of the public trust.

7. Before proceeding further it will be worthwhile to bear in mind the scope and ambit of exercise of powers by the Joint Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the Trust Act. The provisions of Section 79 and Section 80 of the Trust Act sum up the limits of exercise of jurisdiction, which read as under:

“79. Decision of property as public trust property:

(1) Any question, whether or not a trust exists and such trust is a public trust or particular property is the property of such trust, shall be decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal as provided by this Act.

(2) The decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal, as the case may be, shall, unless set aside