RATHORE, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is directed against the order dated 23. 7. 2001 passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department in appeal No. 3/2001 filed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that there is a temple of Shri Krishna Behariji situated in Purani Basti, Jaipur. This temple was constructed more than 100 years ago. It is allowed that the temple was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioner and the former Jaipur State has sanctioned State Grants in various villages for the Sewa-Pooja and for the maintenance of the temple. THE last grantee in whose favour the Matmi was sanctioned by the former Jaipur State was Tiwari Govind Bus, was died on 20. 3. 46. THEreafter, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. 49/matmi-Jaipur of Samvat 2006 vide its order dated 14. 8. 50 recognised Ghisi Lal as the successor of last grantee Govind Bux and sanctioned the Matmi in his name. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department recommended to the Revenue Department, which was also the Administrative Department of the Devasthan Department vide letter dated 2. 9. 57 that the temple in question was constructed by the ancestors of Ghisi Lal and asked for sanction for handing over the temple to Ghisi Lal and the temple was handed over to Ghisi Lal. The Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner issued a notice under Section 70 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 and after considering the enquiry the Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner vide order dated 6. 4. 88 set aside the notice issued under Section 70 of the Act 1959. Against which the respondent No. 1 being devotee and interested in the temple filed an appeal under Section 20 before the commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur in the year 2000. Devasthan Commissioner vide its order dated 23. 7. 2001 set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner dated 6. 4. 88 and remanded the matter back to the Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner for conducting enquiry in the matter afresh. This order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that this order is not appealable as the notice under Section 70 was issued by the Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner and as per Section 70 the penalty can only be imposed in the case of contravention of any provisions of Section 17, 23, 27, 30 and 66. Learned counsel for the petitioner also seriously alleged that th appeal, which has been preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Devasthan Commissioner after lapse of more than 12 years whereas as per the provisions of Section 20 of Limitation Act 60 days limitation is provided. Thus the order passed by the Devasthan Department is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and respondent No. 1. is not entitled to file the same.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the notice under Section 70 is issued, the question does not arise to examine the aspect under Section 70 and the enquiry is required to be conducted under Section 18 and no finding also required to be given under Section 19. Thus the appeal, which has been preferred by respondent No. 1 under Section 20 before the Devasthan Commissioner is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Devasthan Department and the Revenue Department in the year 1957 itself and after granting Matmi in favour of the petitioner the temple was handed over considering the fact that the temple is constructed by ancestors of the petitioner. In view of this fact the order passed by the Devasthan Commissioner is unwarranted, uncalled for the deserves to be quashed and set aside. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the complaint was made under Section 70 and after receipt of application under Section 70 the Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner initiated enquiry under Section 18 of the Act 1959. Notices were also issued under Section 18 (1) and 18 (2) and Asstt. Devasthan Commissioner is supposed to give the finding under Section 9 and same be published in the notice board of Asstt. Commissioner's office as per the provisions of Section 20. Since the publication was not made in the instant case, therefore, the respondent No. 1 immediately came to know about this fact in the year 2000 filed the appeal under Section 20, which is rightly considered as respondent N. 1 is vitally interested in the management of the temple as being a devotee. ;