The District Judge, acting as persona designata, lacks jurisdiction to modify a public trust scheme without express provision, necessitating adherence to statutory procedures under the Public Trusts Act.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the judgment and order dated 5th December 2024 passed by the President of Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, Alandi, Pune, who also functions as the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pune. The said order was passed below Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 31A in Persona Designata Civil Suit No. 1 of 2023, whereby the learned President was pleased to allow the application filed at Exhibit 16, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner, and simultaneously rejecting the application moved at Exhibit 31A.

2. The relevant factual backdrop, as presented by the petitioner, is briefly set out hereunder.

3. The present dispute concerns the manner and procedure for the appointment of trustees to respondent No.1, a public trust, namely Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, associated with the sacred Samadhi of Saint Dnyaneshwar Maharaj, Alandi. The legacy of this holy site is one that spans over seven centuries. Historically, the temple and its endowments have been under varying regimes. Initially, the Peshwa Government had granted an inam village to the temple for its sustenance. Thereafter, the administration passed successively into the hands of the Scindias of Gwalior and subsequently the East India Company.

4. In the year 1851, the place of worship at Alandi was formally declared to be a public trust. For the purpose of managing the affairs of the Samadhi and temple, the then Collector of Pune constituted a Panch Committee in 1852 and appointed six panchas (trustees) based on a list (yadi) prepared for that purpose. It is pertinent to note that this arrangement, though foundational, did not amount to a formal scheme under law.

5. Thereafter, by reason of the enactment of Act XX of 1863, the jurisdiction of the Government and Revenue authorities over religious institutions in the Bombay Province was abolished. Over the years, devotees initiated several legal proceedings before Civil Courts and even the High Court, seeking structured oversight, but all such attempts remained unsuccessful until 1934, when a Civil Suit No. 7 of 1934 was filed in the District Court, Pune under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This suit sought the framing of a formal scheme for management of the trust.

6. By judgment and order dated 11th December 1937, the learned District Judge held that although the original Panch arrangement of 1852 was not a formal scheme under Section 92, the said structure, having endured the test of time, required no replacement but only supplementation through a proper scheme under Section 92 CPC. Consequently, the Court proceeded to modify and formalize the arrangement into a scheme. Clause (3) of the scheme provided that the appointment to vacancies in the body of trustees would be carried out by the District Judge acting as a Persona Designata. Further, by Clause (16) of the scheme, power was conferred upon the Panch Committee to frame Rules in respect of trust administration and religious observances, subject to sanction of the District Judge. These Rules, once sanctioned, were to carry the same force as that of the scheme.

7. This decree was challenged before the High Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 1938 by the existing trustees, and cross- objections were also filed by some devotees. However, vide judgment dated 16th November 1939, the High Court, taking note of a settlement between the parties, dismissed both the appeal and cross-objections and directed that the scheme be amended as agreed. Accordingly, Clause (15) was substituted.

8. Thereafter, on 5th April 1940 and again on 10th May 1940, the Panch Committee submitted proposed Rules under Clause (16) for the District Judge’s approval. Despite objections from certain devotees (filed vide Exhibits 310 to 312, 391, and Exhibits 56 and 57), the District Judge approved the Rules on 8th June 1943. These cam