JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 1998, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

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

“(i) allow the above writ petition of the petitioners;

(ii) qua the impugned order dated 21.5.98 (Annex.No.10) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur;

(iii) quash the entire proceedings in the cases no.3/97 and F.6/97 pending before the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur;

(iv) hold that the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur is not entitled to reopen the issue regarding the nature of the temple.

(v) grant such further relief/reliefs, which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioners; &

(vi) award costs of this petition to the petitioners from the respondents.”

3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that an Abadi property comprising the present Khasra Nos.313/25, 314/25 and 315/25 (Old Khasra Nos.1211, 1212 and 1213) situated at Nyay Marg, Udaipur since belonging to one Shri Balram Das, he was in occupation and possession of the said property since before 1929; he constructed a private Place of Worship, commonly known as Private Temple, which is said to be a property, for which, the rights were conferred by the erstwhile Maharana of Mewar in favour of Shri Balram Das, as an absolute grant. The present controversy has arisen after demise of the said Shri Balram Das on 03.12.1951 and the present petitioners are his legal heirs.

4. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur initiated proceedings for registration of the aforesaid Temple/Place of Worship by issuing certain notices under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1959).

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the notice under Section 18 of the Act of 1959 was also issued although it could not be pointed out as to whether any inquiry whatsoever had taken place in accordance with Section 18 of the Act of 1959, because the notice itself was of Section 70, which is the violation of Section 17 of the Act of 1959 itself. The notices given under Section 17 of the Act of 1959 culminated into closure of the case against the petitioners vide order dated 15.09.1977 (Annexure-1) on count of the fact that there was no violation of Section 17 of the Act of 1959.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out while passing of the order dated 15.09.1977 (Annexure-1) definition of the term ‘Public Trust’ as contained in Section 2(11) of the Act of 1959, and the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1959 was kept into due consideration. The said definition of the term ‘Public Trust’ and Section 70 of the Act of 1959, reads as follows:

“Sec. 2 -Definitions:

In this Act, unless the subject or context requires otherwise

1. ……………….

2. "Board" means the State advisory Board of public trusts established under Sec. 11;

11. "Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both;”

“Sec. 70 -Penalty:

1. whoever contravenes any provision of sub-section (1) of section 17 or subsection (1), (2) and (5) of section 66 shall be published with time which may extend to five hundred rupees.

2. whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under for the contravention of which no specific penalty has been provided shall be punished with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.”

4.3. The notice under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 has been given on count of violation