JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition or in any other appropriate form may kindly be issued quashing the impugned Judgments Annexure 10 and 11 respectively passed by the Respondents No. 2 & 1.

And any other relief favourable to the petitioners may kindly be granted looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that one Shankar Lal, Shiv Narain, petitioner-Madan Gopal (since deceased represented through LRs. herein) and Amrit Lal had purchased a plot of land from one Sethia Bagtawar Chand and Gulechha Pabudan through a registered sale deed in Samvat Year 1973 (30.11.1916); thereafter, Amrit Lal moved an application on 12.06.1919 for grant of patta in respect of the land in question and the same was issued on 12.07.1920; whereafter, the petitioners constructed a building on the land in question.

2.1. Subsequently, one Mag Dutta filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur, stating therein that the property (land in question) is a Public Trust property, to be utilized for charitable purposes, and thus, the petitioners have no right on the property in question. The Assistant Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 22.04.1991, ordered for treating the property in question to be a Public Trust property and also directed for registration thereof accordingly, and for the said purpose, necessary documents were directed to be filed within a period of one month from the date of the said order.

2.2. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 22.04.1991, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.08.1996. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tenant Mag Dutta, with a mala-fide intention, had filed the aforementioned application for the registration in question, despite the fact that no occasion therefor could have arisen, in the present factual matrix. It was further submitted that the petitioners got the patta of the land in question with an intention to construct Umaid Sarai, and that, the said property was their personal property, and not the property of any Public Trust.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had never divested the property in question to any Trust for charitable purposes. It was also submitted that the petitioners and their ancestors constructed a building on the land in question out of their own money and some part of the building in question was given on rent. Thus, the impugned orders are not justified in law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners also filed a suit against one tenant-Jairaj and the same was decreed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, and therefore, the land in question is the personal property of the petitioners, and not belonged to any Public Trust.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the property in question deserves to be utilized for charitable purposes and for the benefit of public at large, and for construction of a Sarai known as Umaid Sarai, Rs. 10,000/- had already been allotted, which was also mentioned in the application dated 12.06.1919 of the petitioners, for issuance of patta.

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners have constructed some shops and let out the same on rent, and such rent was to be utilized for expenditures of Sarai, meant for charitable purposes.

4.2. It was also submitt