The central legal point established in the judgment is that the declaration of a temple as a Public Trust must follow the statutory procedures mandated by the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959.

1. :- Grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that temple of Thakurji Shriji Bhagat Behariji, a private temple was declared as Public Trust on January 28, 1986 by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan and appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed on May 30, 1989 by the Commissioner. The petitioner now seeks to quash the aforequoted orders.

2. The petitioner averred that the temple was constructed in Samvat 1905 by Maji Sahib Smt. Chapawatji of Thikana Chomu. Thereafter as a remuneration for the performance of "Purush Charan Jaap" Shri Lakshman Singh, the then Jagirdar of Thikana Chomu, gifted it to late Mahant Shri Laxman Dasji, the Grand Guru of the petitioner and granted a Patta on Ashad Sudi 15, Samvat 1905. Since then Late Mahant and disciples have been performing Seva Puja of the deity of the temple. Entire management of the temple vests in the petitioner since the time of his ancestors and public has got no concern with the temple. On June 26, 1983 the Inspector Devasthan made a report that as the said temple being a public trust of the value more than Rs. 30,000/- it required registration under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short 1959 Act). The Assistant Commissioner Devasthan issued notice under Section 70 of 1959 Act to which the petitioner submitteh reply and produced copy of the Patta showing that it was a personal grant to his Grand Guru by Thikana Chomu. The Asstant Commissioner was not satisfied and vide order dated January 28, 1986 declared the temple and the property attached to it as Public Trust. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed on May 30, 1989.

3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition denying the averments made in the writ petition. It was pleaded that the temple was rightly held as Public Trust by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan. Maintainability of the writ petition was also questioned on the ground of alternative remedy of the civil suit.

4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record.

5. A close look at the inspection report dated June 26, 1983 (Annexure-1) demonstrates that it was solely based on the personal inspection of Inspector Devasthan Jaipur. On the basis of this report the Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notice (Annexure-1A) under section 70 of 1959 Act to the petitioner as to why the penalty be not imposed on him for not submitting application seeking registration of the temple as Public Trust within the time specified.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of 1959 Act mandates that in order to make inquiry as to whether any property is the property of a Public Trust, the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan shall have to give in the prescribed manner a public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) of Section 18 and invite all persons having interest in the public trust under inquiry.

7. Admittedly no statutory inquiry as laid down in section 18 of 1959 Act was made by the Assistant Commissioner and without performing the statutory duties the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to issue notice under section 70. The Assistant Commissioner acted arbitrarily in not issuing public notice under sub-section (2) of section 18 of 1959 Act and proceeding solely on the basis of inspection report of the Inspector Devasthan. Learned Commissioner Devasthan also while hearing the appeal did not appreciate this legal position.

8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed and impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner Devasthan are set aside. No costs.Petition allowed

*******