The procedure for recording changes in the entries of a public trust register and the appointment of a new working trustee under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959.

1. All the three writ petitions being inter-connected with each other and being in respect of the properties belonging to the Trust named Shri Vijay Raghunathji (Bidawatji), they were ordered to be heard together and are being decided finally by way of this common order.

2. The Civil Writ Petition being No. 13963 of 2012 and the Civil Writ Petition No. 13964 of 2012 arise out of the common order dated 17/07/2012 passed by the Commissioner, Devesthan Vibhag, whereas the Civil Writ Petition being No.10015/2013 arises out of the orders dated 23/05/2013 & 30/05/2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmanghar, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executing Court') in Execution Case No.1 of 2005.

3. The short facts, giving rise to the present petitions, are that the trust named, Shri Vijay Raghunathji (Bidawatiji) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said trust'), was registered as the public trust under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 30/01/1989, of which Late Shri Moti Ram Dasji was the sole trustee. As per the case of the petitioner-Mahant Dilip Das, the said sole trustee Shri MotiRam Dasji expired on 09/05/2009 and after his death, the petitioner was nominated as his successor on 20/05/2009, after performing the customary ceremony of laying down the Chaddar. Since the petitioner was minor at that time, he submitted an application through his guardian-Chhagan Lal Shastri in the prescribed form No.8 under Section 23 of the said Act read with Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Rules'), on 22/01/2010, for recording the said change in the register maintained at the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Vibhag. The said application was registered as the case No.7/2009. In the said case, the respondents of CWP Nos.13963 of 2012 and 13964 of 2012 (who shall be referred as 'the respondents' for the sake of convenience) filed the objections contending inter-alia that Shri Chhagan Lal Shastri could not have acted as the guardian of the petitioner, in absence of any order of the competent court.

The respondents also filed a separate application being the case No. 8 of 2009 in the prescribed form No.8, before the Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Vibhag, praying to record their names as the trustees of the said trust, after the death of the working trustee Shri Motiramdasji. The said case being No.8 of 2009 was resisted by the petitioner by filing the objections. It appears that both the cases i.e.7/09 and 8/09 were consolidated by the Assistant Commissioner on 29/12/2009, and the evidence was also recorded in the said proceedings.

4. However, on 23/11/2010, a joint application of compromise was filed in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, which application was signed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7, as also by the respondent No.3-Chhagan Lal Shastri as the guardian of the petitioner, agreeing to accept the application No.8 of 2009 filed by the respondents, and not pressing for the application No.7 of 2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of the said application of compromise, passed the order dated 10/12/2010 directing to record the names of the respondents in the register. It was directed to show the respondent Nos.1-Mahant Mahaveer Dasji as the President trustee, the respondent No.2-Pawan Kumar Sharma as the working trustee, the respondent No.3-Chhagan Lal Shastri as the treasurer, and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 as the trustees of the said trust. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner claiming himself to be the successor of Mahant Moti Ramdasji, through his guardian Shri Ramjilal S/o. Sita Ram and Shri Vishvnath S/o. Shri Sitaram filed two appeals being No.30 of 2011 and 57 of 2011 before the Commissioner, Devesthan Vibhag. Both the said appeals came to be dismissed by the Commissioner vide th