RAMJANKI MANDIR TRUST Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15-1-1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ater, in District Bhind, passed an order (Annexure-A/3) constituting a trust in respect of "Shri Ramjanki Mandir" and also appointed "Trustees", evidently exercising his powers under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act'. By subsequent order passed on 3-7-1986 (Annexure-A/9), he made changes in the Register in respect of entries concerning the names of Trustees earlier appointed. His subsequent action and the order passed by him in exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Act are challenged on the Writ side before us.

(2.) What appears clear on the face of Annexure-A/3 is that steps to constitute the Trust were taken by the S.D.O. in pursuance of the direction made in that regard by Collector, Bhind, in his order passed on 11-4-1983 in Revenue Appeal No.13/ 81-82. That order is also on record. That is Annexure-R/1 of return of respondents Nos.1 to 3. They are State of Madhya Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Collector, Bhind and the Registrar of Trusts-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Ater, District Bhind. The fourth respondent impleaded in this petition is Shriram Shastry. It appears that the said Shriram Shastry had filed an appeal complaining that the Court below had illegally appointed, in his place respondent Vidyaram, Gram Sarpanch, as Pujari of the temple and had vested in him authority to manage and administer the properties of the temple. He submitted that since the death of Pujari Prabhu Dayal, whose brother he was, he has been performing religious duties of the Office of Pujari and has also been looking after the properties of the temple. In appeal, the learned Collector took the view that the lower Court had not addressed itself at all to the question of the merit of respondent Vidyaram to hold the Office of Pujari, mainly on the ground that he was a resident of the village, his appointment was made. The fact that he was neither educated nor well-versed in the performance of religious rights and ceremonies was not considered. The matter was remanded to the Court below to reassess merits of respective candidates and to make a fresh appointment of the Pujari of the temple. No direction of interim nature was made and evidently, therefore, respondent No.4 continued to act as Pujari of the temple. Indeed, in the concluding paragraph of the Collector's judgment, the relevant direction for constitution of Trust only was made.

(3.) The assertion of respondent No.4 in his return that he continued as Pujari of the temple has been buttressed by the averments made in the common return aforesaid of respondents Nos.1 to 3. They have stated that the lands of the temple were owned by the State and were managed by the Aukaf Department and that respondent No.4 was Pujari of the temple, but he was neither heard nor was he made a "Trustee" when the order Annexure-A/3 was passed. Indeed, the occasion for passing the impugned order (Annexure-A/9) arose when respondent No.4 complained that the Order, Annexure-A/3, had been obtained fraudulently on misrepresentation of facts and he made a prayer for the Trustees being changed because they were closely related to each other and they had a covetous eye, on the properties of the Mandir which they intended to misappropriate. They had got Gram Sarpanch Vidyaram appointed as Pujari with that motive and the fact is that petitioner No.2 Shyambabu Sharma is brother of Vidyaram. Admittedly, an application was filed by Shyambabu Sharma describing himself as President of "Mandir Ramjanki Sewa Samiti", by which he prayed for constitution of a Trust under the Act in respect of the properties of the temple. That is Annexure-A/1. In that application, he had named as many as 12 persons as Trustees and given particulars of the temple building without naming the owner of the lands attached to the temple in the total area of 7.316 hectares. With the petition has also come Annexure-1/2, a Gazette Notification dated 15-6-1984, published under the signature of the S.D.O., Ater, that it appeared to him that properties described in the Schedule thereof was "Public Trust" and he proposed to hold enquiry in regard to that matter on 14-8-1984. Be it mentioned here that neither in the Gazette Notification nor in the application of petitioner Shyambabu, any mention was made of order of Collector passed on 11-4-1983. The short order (Annexure-A/3) recited that no objection pursuant to Gazette Notification was received and as such, Trust was declared, as prayed, in respect of the temple and its properties and Trustees were named. However, all the 12 persons named as Trustees in the application, Annexure-A/1, were not recorded as Trustees; only seven of them were so recorded.