IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2456 of 2024 YANGESHWAR DAS Versus THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shashank Shekhar Dugwekar - Senior Advocate with Shri Siddhant Jain and Bhoopesh Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Senior Advocate with Shri Somesh Rai -

Advocate for respondent No.5.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Ms. Neerja Agrawal -

Advocate for respondent No.6.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated

04.10.2024 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 26111/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.7 is a registered Public Trust under the provisions of the M.P. Public Trusts Act bearing Registration No. 154/55. The appellant contends that without issuing any notice to him, Respondent No.1 passed the order dated 23.08.2024 appointing Respondent No.3 as Receiver of the Trust properties. It is further contended that pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.3 issued an intimation dated 16.10.2024 through WhatsApp informing that possession proceedings would be undertaken on 19.10.2024. According to the appellant, the Shri Dev Ram Janaki Temple (Badia Wala), Pipariya was originally established in the year 1955 under the Guru–Shishya tradition without any government grant or public assistance. The Trust was founded by Mahant Gopal Das and is claimed to be a single Guru–Shishya Trust. Late Sukhram Das, being the chela of Guru Gopal Das, was recorded as Mahant of the Trust pursuant to an order passed under Section 9(1) of the M.P. Public Trusts Act.The appellant claims that he is the chela of Late Sukhram Das, who executed a registered Will dated 02.08.2006 appointing the appellant as his successor and Sarvahakar of the Trust. Based on the said Will, the appellant’s name was recorded as Sarvahakar vide order dated 08.02.2008, and he has been managing the Trust affairs and properties since then. The order dated 05.02.2008 was challenged by a tenant in W.P. No. 9695/2013, which was allowed without issuing notice to the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No. 2453/2024, which is stated to be pending. It is also stated that the appellant has been managing the Trust properties, maintaining accounts, and getting regular audits conducted. Several eviction proceedings were initiated against defaulting tenants, leading to civil and criminal litigation, in which the appellant claims to have been exonerated. A report dated 28.08.2018 submitted by the S.D.O./

Registrar, Public Trust, pursuant to an application made by Aryavrat Shatdarshan Sadhu Mandal, found that the appellant was managing the Trust properly and transparently.

3. The appellant claims to be the Sarvahakar/Mahant of the said Trust by virtue of tradition of Guru Chela and will Executed by Guru Mant Gopal Das. Vide order dated 23.08.2024, the Tehsildar, Pipariya was appointed as Receiver in respect of the properties of Respondent No.7 Trust. The said order was passed on an application made by Respondent No.5 (who is a tenant of the trust) before Respondent No.2, contending that since the mutation order dated 05.02.2008 had been quashed by the Writ Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P. No. 9695/2013, the Trust had become heirless and, therefore, appointment of a Receiver was necessary for its proper administration. In W.P. No. 9695/2013, the order dated 05.02.2008 was quashed on the ground that the powers of Registrar, Public Trust had not been delegated to the authority concerned, and the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

4. The question before us for consideration is whether the appointment of the receiver is bad in law ?

5