Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order whereby the Commissioner, Devasthan Department partly allowed an appeal preferred by Respondent 4 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the petitioner’s application or registration of the trust and declaring it as a public trust for charitable purposes, a Single Judge Bench of Rekha Borana, J., held that mere establishment of a Dharmshala on the land purchased by the forefathers of the petitioners could not be deemed to conclude that the land was allotted for charitable purchases and would be used for the said purpose only forever.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Respondent 4 challenged it and while the Appellate Authority upheld the finding that Respondent 4 was not entitled to any relief, it proceeded to declare that the land directed to be registered in favour of the petitioners would be treated as property of a public trust for charitable purposes. Further, it held that the Civil Court’s decree of partition would not have any effect. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The petitioner contended that the land was purchased by the forefathers after paying the complete valuation of the property and not on any concessional/subsidized rate. It was further contended that no clause of the Patta stated that the land would be used mandatorily for Dharmshala only.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the Patta and noted that the land had been sold in 1916 for Rs 312, with no indication that it was sold at a concessional rate or subject to any restriction regarding its use. Accordingly, the Court held that the Appellate Authority’s finding that the land was allotted at a concessional rate for charitable purposes was clearly erroneous.
The Court noted that a Dharmshala was constructed on the land in question at the inception but then, it was also admitted that a portion of the said land was acquired subsequently, and in lieu of the acquired land, an alternative land was allotted to the petitioners.
Hence, the Court held that mere establishment of a Dharmshala on the land purchased by the forefathers of the petitioners could not be deemed to conclude that the land was allotted for charitable purchases and would be used for the said purpose only forever. It was further evident that 14000 sq. feet of land as allotted in lieu of the acquired land, had been decided to be used by the petitioners for establishment of a Dharmshala, and even a Trust Deed was executed for that purpose.
Thus, the Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in holding that its order would override the decree of a competent Civil Court. Such a proposition was contrary to the settled principles of law. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner to the extent that it declared land other than the land used for the Dharmshala as property of a public trust, and to the extent that it held that the Civil Court’s decree of partition would not affect the trust.
[Prem Prakash Bihani v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5797, decided on 6-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate, Mudit Nagpal and Nishant Gaba
For the Respondent: Sandeep Soni, B.L. Bhati, AAG and Siddharth Mewara