Honble PALLI, J. — The appellant has laid challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.9.1984, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

(2). In sequence of the application for registration of a public trust, the Assistant Commissioner invited objections and 15.09.1975 was fixed as the date of hearing for that purpose. Surprisingly by the order dated 12.9.1975 i.e. three days before the case had been fixed for hearing of the objections, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order ordering registration of the trust. An appeal is said to have been filed by the legal representatives of one Noor Mohd., which was dismissed on 27.9.1976.

(3). Respondent No. 4 Mst. Mariyam moved the Assistant Commissioner on 9.10. 1975 laying challenge to the order of registration, which application remained pending and in the meantime the legal representatives of Noor Mohd. since deceased and Mst. Mariyam filed a suit in the Civil Court claiming right, title and interest in the property.

(4). Since, the application moved by Mst. Mariyam for re-hearing the matter had not been disposed of a prayer was made to decide that application and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 22.2.1983 recalled the order passed by him earlier thereby giving an opportunity to her to contest the application for registration of the trust. This order is Annexure 4 on the record. A challenge was laid to this order before the Commissioner, Devasthan Department and vide the order dated 18.4.1983 Ex.5 on the record the same was dismissed. These two orders were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order.

(5). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(5). It is undisputed that the order of registration of the trust was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 12.9.1975, whereas actually the matter was fixed for 15.9.1975 for hearing of the objections. This on the face of it was illegal and the order was rightly recalled by him later and the respondent No.4 was rightly granted an opportunity to contest on the principles of natural justice and equity. This order was later confirmed by the Commissioner.

(6). The learned Single Judge examined the matter and the impugned orders and after appreciation and perusal of the impugned orders the writ petition was dismissed. The impugned orders have not decided the right, title or interest of either of the parties and the matter was left open after affording proper opportunity to respondent No.4 to contest the registration. Since the respondent No.4 in the meantime had filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of the entry recording registry of the trust, which was hardly a ground to uphold the order of registration passed by the Assistant Commissioner which on the face of it on the admitted position was illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and equity.

(7). The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Mst. Mariyam cannot be heard to contest the application since she has no locus standi. It is urged by him that she had claimed her interest adverse to the trust and thus, cannot be permitted to lay such a claim in the proceedings which are for the limited purpose of registration.

(8). Our attention was invited to Mehta Charitable trust, Pali & Others vs. Gulam Rasool & Others (1). This civil revision had arisen out of the suit filed by Mst. Mariyam for cancellation of the entry recording registration. The suit was held maintainable by the learned District Judge, against which the revision petition had arisen. It is observed in this judgment that no suit by a person claiming a title adverse to the trust could be maintained under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as the Act) for cancellation of the entries. Since such a suit presupposes the existence of public trust and property attach

Click Here to Read the rest of this document