PREM BALLABH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WANCHOO, C. J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Prem Ballabh against the State of Rajasthan and others, and the applicant prays for on appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of a writ of certiorari against the State of Rajasthan, and the Minister in charge Devasthan Department in connection with an order passed by the State of Rajasthan, and communicated to the applicant on 10-1-1953.

(2.) THE case of the applicant is briefly this. THEre is a temple of Shri Vijay Gopalji in the City of Jaipur in johri Bazar. This temple is possessed of certain properties, and was founded by Shri Krishna whom the applicant claims to be his ancestor. It further appears that the temple was granted certain lands by the former State of Jaipur, and the former State of Alwar. THE applicant, however, contends that the temple itself is not a Stats temple, and that the descendants of Shri Krishna are its shebaits. In the year 1925, there was some dispute as to shebaitship, and the then Government of Jaipur passed an order fixing terms for the management of the temple. One of the persons, in whose favour terms were fixed, was Radha Ballabh who is dead. THE others were Suraj Ballabh, Kalyan Ballabh and Durga Ballabh who are all parties to this application. Radha Ballabh died in 1950. THE applicant Prem Ballabh claims to be his adopted son, and therefore entitled to his share in the shebaitship which was half. THE adoption of the applicant by Radha Ballabh is being disputed by Suraj Ballabh. It may be mentioned that proceedings are going on under the Matmi Rules of the former State of Jaipur as to the succession to the estate grant given to the temple by the former Jaipur State. Mutation proceedings are also going on as to the estate grant by the former Alwar State, and we understand that Suraj Ballabh is contesting those proceedings. While these proceedings were going on under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, and the Alwar Revenue Laws, which are in force in the respective areas, Suraj Ballabh applied to the Devasthan Department, Jaipur, and prayed that as Radha Ballabh was dead, his terms of Shebaitship be divided between the remaining three persons. THE applicant objected to this petition. His case was that the said temple was not a State temple, and the question of succession to Radha Ballabh could only be decided by the courts. THE Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, who dealt with this matter, was of the opinion that no executive orders could be passed by Government in this matter, and that the question would be decided in proceedings under the Matmi Rules, which were going on. He thus refused to pass any orders on the application of Suraj Ballabh. THEreupon Suraj Ballabh who was dissatisfied with this order appealed to the Commissioner. No provision of law has been pointed out in support of such an appeal, taut we take it that as the Commissioner was the superior authority, Suraj Ballabh approached him in the hope that he might set aside the order of his Assistant. THE Commissioner, however, thought that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was correct, and refused to interfere.