JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Trust aggrieved against the order dated 13/5/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, Civil Writ Petition No. 6594/2022 filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking to question the validity of the order dated 25/8/2021 passed by the Estate Officer, Govt. of Rajasthan (Mandir Mandal, Nathdwara), whereby, the application filed by the appellant-Trust seeking return of the proceedings was dismissed and order dated 11/4/2022 passed by the District Judge, Rajsamand (appellate authority), whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

3. The respondent no. 3, Nathdwara Temple Board, a Board constituted under the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 (‘the Act, 1959’), initiated proceedings before the Estate Officer for eviction of the appellant-Trust from two shops, owned by it under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (‘the Act, 1964’). After filing response to the show cause notice, an application dated 13/2/2021 was filed by the appellant-Trust questioning the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer inter alia on the ground that as the Trust has questioned the ownership of the Temple Board, the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

4. The application was contested by the Temple Board.

5. The Estate Officer by his order dated 25/8/2021 dismissed the application with reference to an order dated 8/9/2015 passed by this Court in Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai & Anr. vs. Estate Officer, Nathdwara & Anr. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6280/2015 and other 11 connected matters filed by the said Trust and came to the conclusion that the issue was covered by the said determination.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Trust field appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1964 before the District Judge, Rajsamand, wherein, the Temple Board raised objection about the maintainability of the appeal. The appellate authority after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appeal against the order dated 25/8/2021 under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable and consequently rejected the appeal.

7. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed, wherein, the issues pertaining to the non-maintainability of the appeal as well as the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer were questioned.

8. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order, distinguishing the judgments cited by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the appeal was rightly dismissed as not maintainable and that merely because in response to the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer, objection was raised about the ownership of the property, the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to decide the proceedings does not cease and consequently dismissed the writ petition.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

10. Office has reported that the appeal is barred by limitation by 21 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

11. When the matter came up before the Court for orders on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, looking to the fact that writ petition was dismissed in limie, by a detailed order by learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant was required to make submissions on merits of the appeal.

12. After attempting to make submissions on merit of the appeal, time was sought to complete the instructions in the matter on 16/5/2023 and 19/5/2023. Whereafter, when the matter came up before the Court on 25/5/2023, the submissions made on merit of the appeal were reiterated. Looking to the fact that apparently there is no substance in the appeal for the reasons, which would follow, issuing notice to the respondents on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, looking to the small delay of 21 days in filing the appeal, the same