SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE question that emerges in the writ petition is whether the property of Mandir Shri Ganga Maharaniji Bharatpur is the property of deity, a perpetual minor, or it belongs to Devasthan Department Bharatpur?
(2.) UDENIABLY one shop of the temple was let out to the petitioner and he started paying rent of the said shop to the Manager of the temple. Devasthan Department never came into picture at any point of time. However Estate Officer of the Devasthan Department served a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 1964 Act) on the petitioner and passed order eviction under Section 5 (2) on December 30, 1992. After unsuccessful the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. I have heard rival submissions and scanned the material on record. The petitioner has placed on record the rent receipts issued by Manager of the temple. Unless it is established that the property of temple is the property of Devasthan Department or managed or controlled by it, the property cannot be said to be `public property' in view of Section 2 (b) of 1964 Act. Since this legal aspect has neither been considered by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Bharatpur nor by the Estate Officer, in my opinion the impugned orders are not sustainable.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated December 30, 1992 and Feb. 4, 1998 respectively passed by the Estate Officer and the Additional District Judge No. 1 Bharatpur are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Estate Officer (Deputy Commissioner Devasthan Officer. Jaipur) for deciding the matter afresh. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Estate Officer on October 16, 2006. .;