ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of fiiling this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

“(A) To command the respondents to produce before this Honourable Court:- (i) letter No.PFCH/2468-177- BHAG, 1.E dated 30.03.1998 of Government of Gujarat, Legal Department referred to in the letter dated 2.4.1998 (Annexure-A) of the second respondent, (ii) Letter No.EC/ Armash/Vashi/1146/98 dated 2.4.1998 of the Government of Gujarat referred to in order dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure-B) of the second respondent, (iii) Letter No.EC/Srmsdh/Vsdhi/96/99 dated 16th June 1999 (Annexure-B), (iv) Letter No.PFCH/2468/177/Bhag.1/E dated 27.11.1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, referred to in the second respondent’s order dated 27.1.1998 (Annexure-C);

(B) To quash and set aside:-(i) No.PFCH/2468/177/Bhag.1/E dated 27.11.1997 of the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (ii) No.PFCH/2468-177-BHAG, 1.E dated 30.03.1998 of Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, (iii) No.EC/Armash/Vashi/1146/98 dated 2.4.1998 of Government of Gujarat, (iv) No.EC/Srmsdh/Vsdhi/96/99 dated 11.6.1999 of the District Magistrate, Vadodara, (v) Order No.Devsthan/M.A.G./6007/1999 dated 16.6.1999 (Annexure-B) of the second respondent.

(C) To stay pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders set out in prayer (B)

herein before;

(D) To restrain pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the respondents from altering or taking steps to alter any entry in favour of the first petitioner in revenue records relating to any property of estate of Guru Atmaram or withdrawing any notice of attachment issue to any tenant of any property mentioned in the schedules to the order dated 27.1.1998 of the second respondent (Annexure-C);

(E) To grant such otehr and further reliefs as this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper; and (F) To provide for the costs of this petition.”

2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that the properties in question were originaly private properties of Guru Keshavdas, and after the death of Guru Keshavdas, Guru Karsandas became the Mahant and succeeded the properties under his Will. On the death of Guru Karsandas his chela Guru Atmaram became Mahant and succeeded to the properties of Guru Karsandas under his Will dated 08.12.1941. Thereafter, Guru Atmaram died leaving his Will dated 06.05.1947, appointing Guru Ranchhodas as Chela.

2.1 The petitioners challenged the application no. 180/47-48 passed by the Second Class Magistrate Baroda held that Ranchhodas was shishya and heir of Guru Atmaram. However, the then District Magistrate set aside the order of 2nd Class Magistrate. The District Judge by order dated 20.01.1959 held that Guru Ranchoddas had failed to prove that he was shishya of Guru Atmaram. Against that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.659/1959 on 01.05.1959, which came to be finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.11.1986, in appeal filed by Guru Ranchoddas with a finding that he has failed to prove that he was appointed as chela or shishya by Guru Atmaram. In the year 1968, during the pendency of the suit, one Vitthaldas Patel had applied for registration of the said Ramji Mandir as public trust. The inquiry was numbered as inquiry no. 98/68 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara, who by order dated 30.01.1971 has held that the properties of the Mahant were of his ownership and were not any properties of any trust. The said decisions has become final as there has not been any further proceedings undertaken under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

2.2. Thereafter, Guru Ranchoddas under his Will dated 12.02.1978 appointed the deceased petitioner no.1 as his Chela or heir. Mahant Ranchoddas had expired on 14.02.1978, thereafter, petitioners made applicantion no.34/95 in the Court of Civil Judge for succession certificate inrespect of the properties left by Guru