JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
April 17,2014
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BADRI PRASAD VS. NAGARMAL [REFERRED TO]RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST VS. B S MUDDAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PADMA VS. HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA [REFERRED TO]
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. C K RAJAN [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIA VS. LAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
SHEHLA BURNEY VS. SYED ALI MOSSA RAZA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
S. KANIMOHAMED VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-138] [REFERRED TO]PREMJI KESHAVJI AND ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVARU VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAMRAO RAMBHAJI SHELKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
ZAINULABUDIN RIAZHUSEN SAIYED VS. NANJIKAKA GURU KARSHANKAKA (DE FACTO TRUSTEE) [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
PONNURAJ VS. SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-1317] [REFERRED TO]
EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT VS. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-604] [REFERRED TO]
VAIRAESWARAN VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
K. GOPINATH VS. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
ESTEEM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CHETAN KAMBLE [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK PANDEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN SOLI LUTH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
VANCHIKODI VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
K.S.@S. GANESAN VS. THE SECRETARY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
A. KUTTRALINGAM VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
ALLURI SOWMYA VS. GOVT. OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
HITEN DHIRAJLAL MEHTA VS. BHANSALI PRODUCTION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
R. PRAKASH VS. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE VATTUKULAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-374] [REFERRED TO]
B. RADHAKRISHNA MENON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVNESH CHAND SOOD VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
ALI MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN KUMAR TYAGI VS. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
G.VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
BADA GURDWARA SAADH SANGAT VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2015-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
S.SYED KAMARUDHEEN VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
NILESH NAVALAKHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, DADAR ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY AND OTHERS VS. MAHATMA GANDHI KASHI VIDYAPEETH, VARANASI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-127] [REFERRED TO]
B G EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
K. ABDUL VAHABUDHEEN VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-144] [REFERRED TO]
M. ANNADURAI VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
AVADHESH SINGH TOMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHORE NARNOLI VS. GOPAL PUBLIC TRUST AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHONGTHAM NIMAI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The present Civil Appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 4th May, 2010 are The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana (3rd respondent herein); whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, whereas D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust and notification dated 18.09.2004 whereby a Committee under Section 53 of the Act was appointed in respect of the Trust. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5650 of 2007 was filed by the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji. Though D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 6607 of 2004 and D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 5650 of 2007 were filed before the learned single Judge, as all the issues revolve around Galta Peeth and properties of Thikana Galta, the writ petitions before the learned single Judge were called and a common order was passed by the High Court.
(3.)For better appreciation of facts, the relief sought in D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 2321 of 2006, which is a Public Interest Litigation, the order which is impugned in the Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 28021 of 2010 is extracted below:
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Galta Peeth / Thikana, its temples and properties are public properties and not private or individual properties and it may be dealt with in the manner public properties are dealt with; and
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain respondent No. 4 Shri Avadhesh Kumar or any of the other legal representative of late Shri Ramodaracharya as well as respondent No. 5 Shri Raghavacharya in any manner using, managing or interfering in the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and its accompanying temples;
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the State Government should be directed to take over control and management of the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and appoint a Board to manage the properties and temples of the Galta Peeth in line with the Vaishno Devi Shrine or Tirupati Balaji Temple or in any other manner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; and
(iv) by further appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to submit a list of the properties of the Galta Peeth to the Hon'ble Court as well as the list of properties which had been sold by the former Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya or his family members including Shri Avadhesh Kumar and others.
(2.)The present Civil Appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 4th May, 2010 are The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana (3rd respondent herein); whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, whereas D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust and notification dated 18.09.2004 whereby a Committee under Section 53 of the Act was appointed in respect of the Trust. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5650 of 2007 was filed by the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji. Though D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 6607 of 2004 and D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 5650 of 2007 were filed before the learned single Judge, as all the issues revolve around Galta Peeth and properties of Thikana Galta, the writ petitions before the learned single Judge were called and a common order was passed by the High Court.
(3.)For better appreciation of facts, the relief sought in D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 2321 of 2006, which is a Public Interest Litigation, the order which is impugned in the Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 28021 of 2010 is extracted below:
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Galta Peeth / Thikana, its temples and properties are public properties and not private or individual properties and it may be dealt with in the manner public properties are dealt with; and
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain respondent No. 4 Shri Avadhesh Kumar or any of the other legal representative of late Shri Ramodaracharya as well as respondent No. 5 Shri Raghavacharya in any manner using, managing or interfering in the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and its accompanying temples;
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the State Government should be directed to take over control and management of the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and appoint a Board to manage the properties and temples of the Galta Peeth in line with the Vaishno Devi Shrine or Tirupati Balaji Temple or in any other manner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; and
(iv) by further appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to submit a list of the properties of the Galta Peeth to the Hon'ble Court as well as the list of properties which had been sold by the former Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya or his family members including Shri Avadhesh Kumar and others.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.