The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following prescribed procedures and recording evidence before making decisions under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951.

Headnote:
Public Trust - M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 - Section 26, Section 4, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 - The judgment discusses the application of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, specifically focusing on the powers of the Registrar to refer matters to the Civil Court, the procedure for constituting a new Trust, and the requirement for an inquiry before passing orders. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures and recording evidence before making decisions under the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a registered Public Trust, sought to quash orders and restrain the Respondents from taking possession of disputed properties. The Registrar found the Petitioner had no title to the properties and directed the creation of a new Trust. The Petitioner challenged the orders.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Registrar's order based on an application under Section 26 of the Act was valid, as the Registrar had the power to refer matters to the Civil Court. However, the orders to constitute a new Trust under Section 4 and to deliver possession under Section 6 were quashed due to lack of inquiry and evidence recording.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Registrar's orders under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, and the availability of alternative remedies for the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's order based on an application under Section 26 was valid, but orders under Section 4 and Section 6 were quashed due to lack of inquiry and evidence recording. The court emphasized the importance of following prescribed procedures and recording evidence before making decisions under the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in part, quashing the orders under Section 4 and Section 6, and the matter was sent back to the Registrar to record evidence and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law.

ORDER

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(I) To quash the orders in Annexures P-9, P-7 and P-5.

(II) To restrain the Respondents from taking the possession of the disputed properties from the Petitioner and from giving it to the Respondent No. 3.

(III) Issue any other writ/writs, order/orders and direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(IV) Award the cost of this petition.

2. The Petitioner Shri Ram Mandir Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") is a registered Public Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951") . Before registering the Trust an application was submitted by the Petitioner on 31.8.1953 for its registration (Annexure P-1) and the properties which are mentioned in the application include one "Hanuman Mandir". The said Trust was registered under the Act of 1951 vide order dated 10.1.1955. Much prior to its registration the properties were subject matter of the Civil Suit No. 42/1930 which was decided by a compromise judgment and decree dated 15.10.1931 and since then those properties are in possession of Petitioner-Trust. In the year 1990, five shops have been constructed near the "Hanuman Mandir". The Municipality and Nazul Office has given the permission to the Petitioner for construction of the shops.

3. According to the Petitioner, some persons having adverse interest and having prejudice with the Trust activities filed an application under Section 27 of the Act of 1951 before the

Registrar who issued notice to the Petitioner to file reply and accordingly the Petitioner filed the same. The Registrar after hearing the matter has referred the case vide its order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) by exercising the powers conferred to it under Section 26 of the said Act to District Judge, Balaghat. The Registrar in its order also found that Petitioner-Trust has no title, documents of the "Hanuman Mandir" and the permission granted to construct the shops to Petitioner by Municipality and Nazul Office would not confer any title in it.

4. The Registrar further held that the construction has been raised on the Government land. Further it has been held by the Registrar that the Petitioner is not having any Patta of any competent authority and thus according to the Registrar the "Hanuman Mandir" and the properties attached to it are on Nazul land and the Petitioner-Trust has no title on these properties. Thus, according to the Registrar, a new Trust can be constituted for the "Hanuman Mandir" and its properties and further held that for interim measure present Committee will continue to work and after receipt of any direction from the District Court, new Committee in terms of the order of District Judge will function. On receiving the reference the District Judge registered it as Reference Case No. 25/2010 in which an application under Section 27 of the Act read with Section 151 Code of Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed on 22.6.2010 (Annexure P-6).

5. According to the Petitioner, despite the pendency of the reference case before the District Court at Balaghat an application has been filed for registration of new Trust by Respondent No. 3 "Shri Hanuman Mandir Trust" through Shri Ajay Mishra before the Registrar, Public Trust in which Petitioner submitted a reply and stated that "Hanuman Mandir" and the disputed properties are part of the property of Petitioner-Trust and therefore, no new Trust can be created. The Registrar has not only created a new Trust namely "Shri Hanuman Mandir Trust" vide another impugned order dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P-7), but, has also issued a certificate of registration (Annexure P-8). Further the Registrar has held that the disputed properties i.e. Sheet No. 17-A (New Sheet No. 306), Plot No. 36 (New Plot No. 292) area 1612 square meter (9592 square feet) is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(MP) 232

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following prescribed procedures and recording evidence before making decisions under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951.

Cases Referred (1)