SWAMI INDRADEVANAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the mahant of Shitaleshwar mahadeo Temple situated at Karnalpura, Indore. His mahantship descended on him according to guru-shishya parampara, a custom and usage recognised by the then Holkar State. In that capacity as mahant he is holding the properties exclusively to himself. The Registrar of Public Trusts, Indore, had issued a notice to him on 29-1-1969 under section 5 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter called "the Act"), calling upon him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under the Act for not getting the trust registered under section 4 as public trust. The petitioner made representations to the Registrar in writing to the effect that there was no public trust and the temple and the properties belong to him personally. Thereafter the Registrar issued a notice under section 5 (2) of the Act for holding an inquiry as to whether the properties mentioned therein are or are not public trust properties. The aforesaid notice Annxure"d" was published in the gazette of Madhya pradesh on 4 4-1969. The Registrar directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The report of the Sub-Divisional officer was to the effect that the temple in question was not a Public Trust. This report was dated 15-7-1970 The Registrar remitted the matter back for further report on the question whether there is a public trust or not and in case there is a public trust, who could be made the trustees. On further inquiry the sub-Divisional Officer submitted his report on March 22, 1971, to the effect that the temple and the properties in question constitute a public trust and gave a list of persons to be appointed as trustees. The Registrar by his order dated may 31, 1974 (Annexure 'e') declared the Shitaleshwar Mahadeo Mandir as a public trust and the petitioner only a manager and pujari of the institution and that the properties in question belong to the aforesaid public trust. He has further framed a scheme for the management of the public trust and the properties belonging to it and declared the petitioner and 13 others as trustees after removing the petitioner from exclusive management of the properties of the institution. In the aforesaid order the Registrar has given definite findings that the institution in question is a public trust and the properties are trust properties and the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the properties and the institution and is only a manager or pujari of this temple and the properties. Aggrieved by the decision and the findings given by the Registrar the petitioner has approached this Court to have this impugned order quashed and for issuance of appropriate writ or direction for the management of the properties and to continue him in the management of the properties and the temple.

(2.) THE petitioner filed Annexures A, A-l, A-2 (the original gift deed), b, B 1, B 2 (the original sanad) C and D (the notices under section 5 of the Act)and the other records in support of his case. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a return to the effect that the petitioner's claim that the institution and the properties belong to him personally is not true and it is a public trust and the properties are trust properties and the petitioner is only a manager or pujari of the temple and the lands in question have been described as entered "shri Mahadeo Inam devasthan Manager Vidhtanand Guru Vivekanand" in the Jild-Bandobast (settlement records) of the year 1925-26 and the ownership of the land vested in the Mahadev Devasthan and Shri Indradevanand the petitioner was described as the manager, the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy by a suit under section 8 of the Act and the writ petition must be dismissed.

(3.) SHRI S. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Registrar has no power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in so far as it relates to the removal of his client from exclusive management and declaring 13 others along with him as trustees of the institution, that shitaleshwar Mahadev Mandir is not a public trust but a private institution exclusively owned by the petitioner and the properties belong to him and the registrar should have recourse to sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Act for the appointment of the trustees, that in any event, there is no proper inquiry and the inquiry was defective and there was no notice nor notification as contemplated by Rule 5 and consequently the entire proceedings are illegal, erroneous and liable to be quashed. This claim of the petitioner is resisted by the learned deputy Government Advocate contending inter alia, that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground that the petitioner has effective and efficacious alternative remedy by way of suit under section 8 of the Act and even on merits the inquiry by the Registrar under section 5 is just, proper and valid and the Registrar has recorded his findings after due and proper inquiry under section 6 to the effect that the institution is a public trust and the properties are trust properties and there is ample material in support of this conclusion and the revenue records and other materials support his conclusion and the registrar is justified in framing the scheme for the management of the trust properties as such scheme is in the interests of the institution as well as the general public. Shri S. L. Garg learned counsel appearing for the other trustees, respondents Nos. 5, 7, 10 to 13 and 15, reiterated the stand taken by the Deputy government Advocate and laid much stress on the availability of the alternative remedy to the petitioner. In reply, Shri S. K. Agrawal maintained that the alternative remedy by way of suit under section 8 is no available to him in view of the fact that the Registrar has not made entries of the findings under section 7 (1) and no publication of the same has been made under that section; that the suit is not an effective remedy as the Registrar has not recorded findings on all the matters specified in section 5, and the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction.