RAM SWAROOP Vs. COMMISSIONER DEVASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, it has been prayed that the judgment of the Devasthan Commissioner dated July 17, 1990 be quashed and set aside and the judgment of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan dated May 8, 1989 be maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, it is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner's predecessors were granted three Jagirs of different tenures, the first being Jagir of Kishanpole, also known as 'chhota Ramdwara, in Samvat 1893, which is of "udak" tenure. Thereafter, another "udak" tenure Jagir was granted in Bhawani Shanker Pura and the last Jagir in "bhog" (Religious) tenure was granted in Samvat 1920, in village Akodiya, for the Bhog of idol. of Mahadevji installed in the room built by the predecessors of the petitioner within their residential compound wall. The dispute in the present petition is regarding "udak" Jagir of Kishanpole only, which is said to measure 2 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land as mentioned in the report of the Tehsildar dated January 1,1969 (Anx. 14 ). Matmi proceedings are taken according to Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, which was validated by Jaipur Matmi Rules Validation Act, 1961. Under the Matmi Rules, detailed enquiry was held by the Revenue Authorities from the level of the Tehsildar and Collector to the Board of Revenue and, thereafter, final order is passed by the Governor, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers. The original title-deeds, like Patta, Sanad etc. are verified from the State's Old Record. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the direct linial heir to the original grantee of the Kishanpole Jagir. From Matmi order dated October, 1964 (Anx. 6), it is clear that Kishanpole Jagir is of "udak" tenure. "udak" Jagirs are different from 'bhog' Jagirs which are religious Jagirs to the deities and 'udak' Jagirs are non-religious, which are granted to individuals by personal name. It has further been pleaded that the "udak" of Kishanpole, also known as 'chhota Ramdwara', is clearly a private Jagir and cannot be a public trust property as it is different from "bhog" Jagir, as clearly mentioned in Matmi Order (Anx. 6 ). The matter has a chequered history and has come before this Court a number of times. This Court directed that enquiry, in accordance with law, should be held for coming to the conclusion whether the Jagir of Kishanpole was a Private Jagir of the petitioner. The Assistant Jagir Commissioner, vide his judgment dated May 8, 1989 (Anx. 19), held that, after due enquiry, as directed by the Commissioner, Devasthan, the "udak" Jagir of Kishanpole, which is also known as Chhota Ramdwara, is not a Public Trust, but is a private property of Mahant Ramswaroopji. Therefore, it cannot be registered under the provisions of the Public Trust Act, 1959. An appeal was filed by one Devkinandan against the above mentioned order before the Commissioner, Devasthan, who vide his judgment dated July 17, 1990 (Anx. 20) reversed the judgment (Anx. 19), accepted the appeal and held that the Kishanpole Jagir be registered as Public Trust.

(3.) THE Devasthan Commissioner, in his judgment (Anx. 20), also admits the genuineness of Patta (Anx. 1) of "udak" nature of the Jagir land and states that it is not a "bhog" grant. He also states that the said Jagir was granted in "dan" to the ancestor of the petitioner Swami Rarnvallabh. Thus, the grant was made to an individual in his name for his personal use like construction of the residential house and Bagichi, which is also mentioned in Anx. 1. THErefore, from Anx. 1, it is clear that Ramballabh is the only beneficiary of this "udak" grant of Kishanpole. It is further mentioned in Anx. 20 that non-petitioner No. 3 Devakinandan is a tenant of the petitioner. However, a notice was given by non-petitioner No. 3 and others (Anx. 17) to the petitioner for purchasing the land at Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. from the petitioner. THE only inference that can be drawn from this notice is that non-petitioner No. 3 recognised the petitioner to be owner of the land and, therefore, wanted him to sell the same at Rs 3/-per sq. yard. Non-petitioner No. 3 has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending in the Court of the Munsif, at Jaipur. A copy of the plaint has been produced and marked as Anx. 21, in which, non-petitioner No. 3 in para 14 states that he is owner of the land. Again, before the Devasthan Commissioner, he states that the disputed land is a public trust. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner No. 3 is blowing hot and cold and changing positions from tenant to owner and, thereafter, tried to get the disputed land declared as public trust. It may also be pointed out that non-petitioner No. 3 did not file any objection under Section 18 of the Trust Act, till the decision dated May 8, 1989 was given by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan. THE Devasthan Commissioner, keeping in view the changing stands taken by non-petitioner No. 3, has stated in Anx. 20 that he has an adverse interest against the property, which has been termed as public trust property. It may be pointed out that Section 20 of the Trust Act provides that appeal can be filed against the finding of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan by only such person, who is either a working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property. From the changing stands taken by non-petitioner No. 3, it can be said that neither he is a working trustee, nor he can be said to have any interest in the public trust property. In fact, he has evidently adverse interest in the public trust property, inasmuch as he wants that this property be sold to him by the petitioner at the rate demanded in the notice given to the petitioner. As stated above, in para 14 of the plaint (Anx. 21), non-petitioner No. 3 has claimed that he is owner of the portion of the disputed land. THErefore, in fact, he had no right to file appeal.