Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
SMT. GAYATRI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI RAMODACHARYA – Appellant
Versus
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI – Respondent
CW / 16243 / 2016
In the context of a public trust, a minor trustee is recognized as a person who holds a position of trust on behalf of a minor, such as an idol or deity that is considered a perpetual minor. The law and the court's reasoning establish that properties endowed to a deity or idol are vested in the idol itself, which is regarded as a juristic person or a legal entity in Hindu law. The trustee, such as a Mahant or Shebait, acts as a manager or caretaker of the trust property and the idol, but does not have ownership rights over the properties. The properties are deemed to belong to the idol, which is a minor and cannot manage its own affairs or execute legal actions on its own behalf.
Since the idol is a perpetual minor, the law mandates that the guardian or the State shall oversee the management and administration of the trust properties vested in the idol. The trustee’s role is limited to performing religious duties, such as seva pooja, and managing the properties only for the benefit of the idol. The trustee cannot alienate or transfer the properties vested in the idol for personal gain, as these properties are considered to be in the ownership of the deity itself, not the trustee (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the law confers a special status upon the idol as a juristic person, which means it possesses a legal personality for the purpose of owning property and safeguarding its interests. The properties are to be managed in accordance with the original endowment and the religious purpose for which they were dedicated. The trustee or Mahant acts as a de facto or de jure manager, but the ownership remains with the idol, which is a minor and under the guardianship of the State (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, a minor trustee of a public trust, especially when the trust property is vested in an idol or deity, is a managerial or custodial figure who holds a fiduciary position. The properties belong to the idol, which is a minor, and the trustee’s authority is limited to managing and protecting these properties for the religious and spiritual purpose of the trust. The trustee cannot claim ownership or alienate the properties in their own name, as the properties are considered to be in the ownership of the idol, a perpetual minor, with the State acting as its guardian (!) .
Reportable Reserved on: 22/02/2024 Pronounced on: 22/07/2024 Sr. No. Contents Page Nos.
Part A Prefatory Remarks 8 Part B Introduction: Origin, Significance and Historical Background of the Galta Peeth Dispute 8-24 Part C Orders Impugned Dt. 28.03.2013 and 10.11.2016 24-25 Part D Submissions of the Petitioners 26-32 Part E Submissions of the Respondents 32-40 Part F Issues/Points of Determination 40-41 Part G Discussions and Findings 41-96 Part H Ancillary Remarks 96-100 Part I Conclusion Part J Directions 101-104 (Downloaded on 24/07/2024 at 12:00:40 AM) (8 of 104) Part A Prefatory Remarks
1.Since time immemorial, the history and culture of this country have been home to the quests for truth, whether it be through the material, the political or the spiritual. By virtue of the present set of petitions, this Court is called upon to exercise its adjudicatory authority, with regards to the issues emanating from the administration of Thikana Galta Ji and the ownership of its properties, which vide orders impugned dated 28.03.2013 and 10.11.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan and Commissioner, Devasthan Department (Appellate Authority) respectively, are stated to have been altered, purportedly sans the authority of law.
2.Therefore, since the scope of the controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions is identical and overarching; with due consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, the petitions are jointly taken up for final disposal, by way of a common order. Part B Introduction: Origin, Significance and Historical Background of the Galtapeeth Dispute
3.Situated within the welcoming Aravalli hills, which traverse through the landscape of Jaipur, the site of Galta Ji, also known as Galtapeeth/ Galta Gaddi/ Galta Thikana, consists of a series of temples, a Gurukul/Ashram, seat of the Mahant and a picturesque natural spring emerging high on the hill, which flows downwards and fills a kund (water tank) where devotees of Galta Ji bathe. (Downloaded on 24/07/2024 at 12:00:40 AM) (9 of 104)
4.Galta Ji has its origin from ‘Galav’ rishi, a saint who lived at the site practicing meditation and doing penance i.e. tapasya. With the passage of time and on account of the astute worship and belief of its devotees, Galtapeeth emerged as a ‘tirth’ i.e. pilgrimage for the Hindu faith, with the underlining belief that the water at the site was holy. As a result, Galtapeeth garnered notable religious, spiritual and emotional significance for the followers of the Hindu faith.
5.As per the record before this Court, which includes the findings of the fact-finding authority i.e. Devasthan Department, Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari Maharaj established the Galta Gaddi in Samvat Year 1560 i.e. 1530 AD and became the first Mahant of the Galta Gaddi. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that a Mahant is the spiritual head of the temple/institution, who is responsible for the management of the estate in a proper manner, including the vital engagement of ensuring that the income emanating from and/or generated through the said temple/institution, is utilized only for the purpose of worship of the deity/idol or maintenance and upkeep of the temple/institution.
6.Pursuant to the demise of the founder Mahant i.e. Shri Krishnadas Ji Payohari, Shri Keel Das Ji was appointed by the erstwhile State of Jaipur as the successive Mahant of the Galta Gaddi. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur continued to appoint Mahants pursuant to the demise of their predecessors. In continuation, Shri Harisharnacharya was appointed as Mahant of the Galta Gaddi in the Year 1920. However, on account of (Downloaded on 24/07/2024 at 12:00:40 AM) (10 of 104) mismanagement of the properties of the Galta Gaddi, Shri Harisharnacharya was removed from the post of Mahant in the Year 1924. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Jaipur, vide order/notification dated 22.10.1924, took all the assets and management of the Thikana Galta Ji under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
