Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 1005
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 472/2024 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16347/2016 Avdheshacharya Son of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Aged About 66 Years, Resident of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur and now Residing at Acharya Niwas, Near Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji, Shri Galta Dhaam, Galav Ashram, Jaipur 302003 ----Appellant Versus
1. Devasthan Commissioner, Office of The Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag, Rajasthan, Udaipur
2. Jaipur Shehar Hindu Vikas Samiti, A Society Registered under The Rajasthan Society Registration Act, Through President Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal Son of Shri Ram Niwas Agarwal, Aged Around 60 Years, Resident of Plot No.
A-274, Muktanand Nagar, Jaipur
3. State of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur Acting Through The Chief Secretary
4. Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Vibhag, Temple Shri Ramchandra Ji Ground Floor, Sirh Dyodi Bazaar, Jaipur.
....Respondents
5. Smt. Gayatri Devi Wife of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Resident of House No. 27, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur.
6. Suresh Mishra Son of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur.
7. Dr. Ramesh Mishra Son of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
8. Devendra Mishra Son of (Late) Shri Ramodaracharya Ji, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of House No. 12, Mishra Bhawan, Gangori Bazaar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur (Since Deceased)
8/1. Priyanka Mishra Wife of (Late) Shri. Devendra Mishra, Resident of Mandir Shri Roop Chaturbhuj Ji, Gangori Bazar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur
8/2. Master Sarvagya Mishra Son of (Late) Shri. Devendra Mishra, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Priyanka Mishra Wife of (Late) Shri. Devendra Mishra, Residents of Mandir Shri Roop Chaturbhuj Ji, Gangori Bazar, Choti Chaupar, Jaipur ….Proforma Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. RN Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, Mr. Ankit Kumar & Mr. Utkarsh Dubey Mr. MM Ranjan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Yellop Singh Mr. Vikram Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Ms. Aditi Vats Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Chaudhary Mr. RK Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur, Mr. RB Mathur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Simlote Mr. Yash Sharma Mr. Mahendra Kumar Devatwal, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, in person.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
02/08/2024
1. Vide this order, Stay Application No. 11477/2024 filed by the appellant is being disposed off.
2. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, pressing application for stay of the orders passed by the learned Single Jude as well as the Commissioner, Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority), argued extensively both on the issue of succession and mismanagement of the Trust. As far as the issue of succession is concerned, learned Senior Counsel drew attention of the Court to various documents and orders passed by the courts from time to time as also the documents relating to registration of Public Trust to canvass that the post/seat of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi is hereditary in nature ever since first Mahant Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari Maharaj since 1530 AD. Appointment of Mahant by way of succession continued for a long time and merely because Shri Harisharnacharya, who was appointed in the same manner as Mahant in 1920 and was later on removed, it could not be said that the mode of succession changed. Reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Resolution dated 03.10.1939 followed by a procedure of selection and appointment of Mahant of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi was not the normal mode of succession. After appointment of Shri Ramodaracharya as 16th Mahant, the succession mode again continued and resumed.
On the aspect of mismanagement of the properties of the Trust, it has been argued that it is not a case where any property, which is admitted to be of the Trust, was either disposed off or put to misuse or in any other manner destroyed or diminished, frustrating the object of the Trust. It is submitted that the allegation is only in respect of certain properties, which as claimed by the appellant, never belonged to Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi, but were only personal properties of the Mahant and the source of title was not the creation of the Trust. The disputed properties were settled in the name of Mahant. Learned Single Judge, without any basis, has assumed all the disputed properties to be the part of the Trust ignoring the material on record which clearly established that the disputed properties belong to Mahant in his personal capacity. It is also submitted that while submitting the application for registration of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the disputed properties were not enlisted in the list of properties of the Trust.
3. It is next contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and has even misread various orders and recorded findings on the issue which was not actually raised for consideration.
4. It is, therefore, prayed that as the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant, the impugned order may be stayed otherwise it will seriously interfere with the management of the Trust and its properties by the appellant who has been managing the same since long time.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge has affirmed the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority), after detailed consideration of the material on record, historical background of creation of Thikana Galta Ji/Galta Gaddi as also the Public Trust, succession from time to time, particularly the mode of succession and the procedure adopted in pursuance of Resolution dated 03.10.1939 and that the appointment of last Mahant was by way of selection, inviting applications vide Advertisement dated 10.10.1942.
6. The appellant claims to be the successor of Shri Ramodaracharya, who was appointed as Mahant through the process of selection and there is nothing in Resolution dated 03.10.1939 to show that that was the mode of succession only as a one time measure. When the Trust was registered, the mode of appointment of Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya was applicable and, ther
