Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vineet Kothari, B.N. Karia, JJ.
Deceased Narayan Kalidas Rajgaur (Narayan Bapu) Through Heir – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. and ors. – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 2941 of 2010 In R/Special Civil Application No. 11748 of 2009 With Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 14-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr B.S. Patel, Sr. Counsel With Mr Chirag B Patel
For the Respondent: Mr Soaham Joshi, AGP
Point of Law: participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations may be a very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restricted participation of the public for darshan
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Construction of Temple - Order of Collector cancelling order of Deputy Collector - Government of Gujarat was pleased to pass an order on November allotting land hectare Aare meter in favour of deceased land was allotted to for establishment Ashram and residential on payment - Amount was deposited and was duly issued - Respondent issued Show Cause Notice on ground that deceased had exchanged land to which was not permissible - As per submissions of original Petitioner
Finding of the Court: Supreme Court held that origin of temple manner in which its affairs are managed nature and extent of gifts received by it rights exercised by devotees in regard to worship therein are relevant factors to establish whether a temple is public temple - Or private temple - Likewise as in State Rajasthan and others participation of members of public in the in temple and in daily acts worship or in celebrations may be very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple - Present case appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restricted participation of public - Present case also before issuing Show Cause Notice to original Petitioner issued by Collector was never questioned by Respondent Authorities straightway passed the orders by Respondent and by Respondent directing to vest land with Government - Respondent confirmed order which was as per our opinion was not legal and correct
Result : Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT :
B.N. KARIA, J.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2941 of 2010.
The Legal Representatives of the deceased Shivrambhai Narayandas Rajgor (Heir of deceased original Petitioner), who said to be expired on 07.09.2020, are taken on record. Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.)
(B.N. KARIA, J.)
ORDER IN R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2941 of 2010 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11748 of 2009.
1. Present Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shivrambhai Narayandas Rajgaur, have requested to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 27th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Justice K. S. Jhaveri, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 11748 of 2009, wherein deceased Shivrambhai Narayandas Rajgaur was the Original Petitioner, who died during the pendency of this Appeal.
2. Brief facts of the present case may be described as under:
2.1 Shivrambhai Narayandas Rajgaur, who was known as “Narayan Bapu” through his disciple Mr. J. D. Panchal, requested the Government for allotment of the land to establish “Ashram” at Bharuch. That, the Government of Gujarat was pleased to pass an order on 18th November 1993 allotting the land of 2-80-00 hectare Aare Sqr. meter in favour of deceased Narayan Bapu. The land was allotted to Shri Narayan Bapu for the establishment of “Ashram” and residential “Kutir” on payment of Rs.1,82,000/-. The said amount was deposited and the Sanad was duly issued. Respondent No.2 issued Show Cause Notice dated 12.05.2005 on the ground that deceased Narayan Bapu had exchanged the land to Mr. J.D.Panchal, which was not permissible. As per the submissions of the original Petitioner, as the land allotted to the deceased was not in straightline and was occupied for the purpose of construction of Temple, Ashram and Kutir. The disciple of Narayan Bapu i.e. Mr. J.D.Panchal had also got adjoining land, and therefore, a proposal was made to the Deputy Collector, Bharuch for exchanging the area of the land so that rectangle land can be available for construction of the Ashram etc., The Deputy Collector called a Report from the D.I.L.R and granted permission on 14.08.2003. Then Narayan Bapu constructed the building including Temple, Ashram, Kutir etc. and spent approximately amount of Rs.25 to Rs.30 Lakhs.
2.2 Thereafter, on 26.12.2008, permission granted by the Deputy Collector, Bharuch dated 14.08.2003 was cancelled by the Collector. The original Petitioner challenged the order of the Collector cancelling the order of the Deputy Collector, Bharuch before the Revisional Authority, which was still pending. That, reply was given of the Show Cause Notice on 25.07.2005 by Narayan Bapu and subsequently he was expired on 17.11.2007. After, lapse of Three and half years, hearing was made and Order was passed by the Collector. Again the original Petitioner approached the Revisional Authority under Section 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. As the hearing of the Revision Application could not be taken place, Respondent No.3 issued Notice for taking possession of the land in question and further order was passed.
2.3 Therefore, the original Petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1344 of 2009 wherein, Ad Interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioner on 17.02.2009. In that Petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader made a statement before the Court on 23.06.2009 that Respondent No.1 will decide the Revision Application within a period of Two months from the date of the said order, and therefore, the original Petitioner withdrawn that petition. Thereafter, hearing was taken place before the Revisional Authority, however, the Respondent No.2 – Collector, Bharuch did not accept the contentions of the original Petitioner and by an o
