Rajasthan High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding transfer of the temple land acquisition compensation award, a division bench comprising of Munnuri Laxman and Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati,* JJ., dismissed the PIL and affirmed the Devsthan Department’s control over temple compensation for land acquisition, citing legal provisions and circulars aimed at protecting temple interests.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner is the President of a registered Trust, Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir (Matha), located in Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, District Jodhpur. A Gazette Notification under the National Highway Act, 1956 was issued on 26-06-2020 for the construction of a Ring Road around Jodhpur City, initiating land acquisition proceedings. Compensation awards were passed on 25.05.2021 for acquired lands, but the awarded amount for the Trust’s land was not transferred to its account. The petitioner applied for the release of the compensation amount, which was directed to be deposited into the account of the respondent-Commissioner, Devsthan Department, by orders dated 19-01-2015 and 25-02-2015.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the withholding of compensation is arbitrary and illegal. It was contended that the Temple is managed by a private Trust, not by the government, so the orders are not justified. It was argued that the Temple or Trust does not receive any government grants, so the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (the Act) and related guidelines do not apply. The petitioner cited precedents and contended that the deity of the Temple is a perpetual minor, and any action against its interests is unlawful.
The respondents contended that the compensation amount is required to be deposited with the Devsthan Department as security for purchasing property, including the Temple idol. It was argued that the circular dated 11-06-2020 specified that the Trust/pujari is not authorized to obtain acquisition amount, and the orders were made in the public interest. It was contended that the Commissioner is the Treasurer of charitable endowments and has control over Temple endowments.
Court’s Observation and Decision
The Court noted that as per Section 37 of the Act, the Commissioner is deemed a Treasurer of a Charitable Endowments in Rajasthan. The Court observed that the Devsthan Department’s control over temple compensation is lawful and in the temple’s interest, as per circular dated 11-06-2020, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Court stated that the “State Government is the best authority to protect the right of the temple” especially under the Act and the “Commissioner, being a Treasurer is empowered to exercise its control over the Temple and also to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the Temple land.” The Court noted that the compensation is to be used for temple benefit, including purchasing alternative land. The temple trustees’ authority is restricted, and the state government has the duty to protect temple rights. The Court observed that the Temple is a registered public trust, and compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple land must remain in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. The Court found the orders and the circular justifiable, aiming to protect the Temple’s land and interests. The Court dismisses the PIL, finding no grounds for relief to the petitioner.
“The Temple (deity) is a perpetual minor and the pujari/trustee acts only as its caretaker and thus, the compensation in lieu of acquisition of Temple’s land has to remain in the account of the Commissioner, Devsthan Departmnet, who in turn, would utilize the same for purchase of alternate land as per the decision of the Committee, and such land after being purchased would be allotted back to the Temple, thus, completely protecting and safeguard its rights and interests.”
[Partap Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 975, order dated 20-04-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Moti Singh, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Manish Patel, AAG, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
