Order Reserved on 22.4.2025 Order Passed on 30.06.2025 1 - Ajay Kumar Bais S/o v. 1 - Ramadhar S/o Inder Singh Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kurra
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.02 19:15:05 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 5402 of 2022 Order Reserved on 22.4.2025 Order Passed on 30.06.2025 1 - Ajay Kumar Bais S/o Pyarelal Bais Aged About 56 Years Sarwarakar, Shri Ram Mandir, R/o Kurra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ramadhar S/o Inder Singh Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Arjun Lal S/o Khamhan Lal Patel Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Vishnu Ram Sahu S/o Jagat Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Goverdhan Diwan S/o Gulab Diwan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Nakul Ram Patel S/o Shyam Sunder Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Soman Lal Sahu S/o Bahur Singh Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 7 - Manglu Ram Kanwar S/o Suresh Ram Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Ashok Kumar Diwan S/o Sewak Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Joham Ram S/o Ram Prasad Kanwar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 10 - Chaitu Ram Sahu S/o Mannu Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 11 - Narsingh Sahu S/o Jagat Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 12 - Devdhar Ram S/o Tukaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 13 - Dulari Bai W/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 14 - Prahlad S/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 15 - Virat S/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 16 - Mukku S/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 17 - Purnima D/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Charra, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 18 - Saraswati D/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Charra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 19 - Krishna D/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 20 - Laxmi D/o Late Chandra Prakash Bais Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Madeli, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 21 - Bhuwan Lal Diwan S/o Jhagan Diwan R/o Village Kurra Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 22 - Puran S/o Radhelal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kurra Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate with Shri K.K. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed while confirming the concurrent findings given by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), the Collector as well as the Commissioner in a dispute regarding formation of Public Trust by the SDO (Revenue). The private respondents herein have moved an application on 25.9.2014 before the SDO (Revenue)-cum- Registrar, Public Trust, Kurud, District Dhamtari for registration of the property in dispute under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act of 1951’) read with Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Rules, 1962. On an application being filed the SDO registered as Case No.01/B- 113/2011-2012 for the land in dispute situated at Village Kurra 4 and has passed order dated 31.7.2012 while holding that the SDO (Revenue) is not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate title of lands. The order dated 31.7.2012 was assailed in an appeal before the Collector, Dhamtari in which vide order dated 11.8.2014 the respondents herein were directed to make Collector as a party respondent as Manager along with Sarvarakar Ajay Bais. By the said order the SDO (Revenue) was further directed to proceed further for registration of Ram Mandir and the lands as a Public Trust vide its order dated 11.8.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Collector, Dhamtari has preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur vide its order dated 18.7.2019 dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the order of Collector. A revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh against the order dated 18.7.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, this petition has been preferred while assailing the aforesaid order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing aforesaid concurrent orders of the Revenue Courts have committed illegality. The Ram Mandir as well as the other immovable properties belong to Deity. The erstwhile Sate of Madhya Pradesh has passed Circular dated 11.2.1988 to the effect that the land which is not being held by the Deity may be recorded in the name of Collector as Manager. However, 5 the present Ram Mandir and land belongs to Deity as such Collector cannot be made as a Manager. The name of grand father of the petitioner Motiram was recorded in the records of right pertaining to year 1954-1955 and since 1980 name of Pyarelal, father of the petitioner was recorded as Sarvarakar. Subsequently, name of the petitioner is recorded as Sarvarakar. On 7.5.1997, the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit bearing No.40-A/2010 Shri Ram Mandir and another v. State and others for declaration of title stating that the Mandir and land be declared to be the land belonging to Shri Ram Mandir Private Trust and the plaintiff being the Sarvarakar of the said Private Trust. The suit came to be dismissed while holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the Private Trust property. The entry of name of Prabandhak (Manager Collector) in the revenue records relating to the suit property is also found illegal. It was further directed that name as stated “Prabandhak Collector (Manager Collector)” was to be removed from the revenue records. It was further directed that if any dispute is raised in future it should not be done otherwise the procedure prescribes. It was argued that the application filed under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 was filed by the respondent before the SDO (Revenue) which was rejected. The appeal preferred before the Collector was without jurisdiction and as such even if any order is passed the same is void ab initio. Since the appellate authority under the Act of 1951 was required to be appointed through notification and according to Madhya Pradesh Extra Ordinary 6 Gazette Notification dated 25.1.1953 the State Government has pleased to appoint the President, Board of Revenue to be the ofÏcer for the purposes of entertaining an appeal against the order of SDO (Revenue) as such the Collector is not having any jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the order of SDO (Revenue) under the Act of 1951 as under Section 3 of the Act of 1951 the Collector is designated as Registrar. The SDO (Revenue) works as Registrar on designation by the Collector as such the appeal is not entertainable and as such the order passed by the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue is not in accordance with law when the Collector himself is not having power to entertain the appeal. As such interim order is required to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Tularam v. State, reported in AIR 1981 MP 23 and Smt. Sudama Bai v. Pratap Sing, reported in AIR 1989 MP 117. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that three Revenue Courts have passed concurrent orders against the petitioner which cannot be interfered with. He submits that the Collector is having power and authority to decide the appeal. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed in First Appeal No.406 of 1998 in the matter of Shivnath Jogi and others v. Ganesh Bajpai and others. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 7 record. 6. The dispute encircles around the Act of 1951. In order to appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be apt to state the relevant provisions of the Act of 1951, which read as under: “3. Registrar of public trusts. (1) The Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal ofÏce or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub- section (3) of section 4 is situated in his district. (2) The Registrar shall maintain a register of public trusts, and such other books and registers and in such form as may be prescribed. 1. Legislative changes. With a view to settle the controversy whether the Collector acts as persona designata the State Legislature by Amendment Act XVII of 1964 has introduced a new section, namely, 34-A, whereby the Registrar has been empowered to delegate the powers of Registrar to any Revenue OfÏcer in his district not below the rank of Sub-Divisional OfÏcer. Further the amendment has been given retrospective effect, that is to say, the amendment shall be read and construed as if it had formed part of the principal Act from the commencement thereof. Section 4 of 8 the amendment Act validates things done, actions and proceedings taken and orders passed by certain ofÏcers under the principal Act. For details see further notes under section 34-A (infra. The decision in Budhulal v. Registrar, Public Trusts, 1964 MPLJ 887, has to be read now in the light of aforesaid amendment. 2. General. Where certain orders under sections 5 and 6 of the Act were passed by the Collector since that trust was situated in one of the tahsils of the district and later that tahsil became a separate district and then a second order was passed by the Collector of the new district, it was held that the Collector of the new district could be treated as successor of the Registrar of the former district. As such successor the Registrar of the new district would get jurisdiction over the trust property. Rewaram v. Registrar, Public Trusts, 1961 MPLJ 1081. 3. Registrar may delegate his power to S.D.O.–Collector, namely, the Registrar of the Public Trust may delegate his powers to the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer. On such delegation the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer gets powers of the Registrar. Phool Chand and others v. Registrar, Public Trusts, Satna and others, 1973 JLJ 822 : 1973 MPLJ 658 : 1973 MPWR 412. 9 4. Principal ofÏce or place of business. See Anant Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1963 SC 853 and Hariram v. Mahant Raghunath Das, 1960 JLJ Note 5 : 1960 CLJ Note 4. 4. Registration of public trusts.—(1) Within three months from the date on which this section comes into force in any area or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later: the working trustee of every public trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust. (2) Such application shall be accompanied by such fees, if any, not exceeding five rupees as may be prescribed. (3) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall among other things contain the following particulars, namely :- (i) the origin, nature and object of the public trusts; (ii) the place where the principal ofÏce or the principal place of business of the public trust is situated; (iii) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager; (iv) the mode of succession to the ofÏce of the trustee; 10 (v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property in the State and such description and particulars as may be sufÏcient for the identification thereof; (vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property; (vii) the income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has lapsed since the creation of trust whichever period is shorter and in the case of newly created public trust the estimated income from such sources; (viii) amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vi) relate; (ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent; and (x) such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that the rules may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall not be 11 necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and such kind as may be specified therein. (4) No Registrar shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Registrar and the Registrar before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Registrar shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust. (5) An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-section (4) may be filed within thirty days of the order before such ofÏcer as State Government may, by notification, appoint and, subject to the decision in such appeal, the order of the Registrar under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of an instrument of trust if such instrument had been executed and in existence and where the trust property includes immovable property, about which record is kept, a copy of the entries relating to such property in such record of rights. 1. Forum of application.—See Anant Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 853 and 12 Hariram v. Mahant Raghunath Das, 1960 MPLJ Note 5. 2. General.—The Registrar who is given powers of civil court under Section 28 of the Act holds a kind of summary enquiry and clauses (i) to (x) of Section 4 (3) indicate the points which can fall within his jurisdiction. Contested questions of title do not fall within the enquiry held under Section 5. The only persons who are required to file their objections in response to a notice issued by the Registrar on receiving an application made under 4 (1), are persons interested in the public trust not persons who dispute the existence of the trust or who challenge the allegation that any property belongs to the said trust. Abdul Karim Khan v. Municipality Committee, Raipur, AIR 1965 SC 1744. 1966 MLJ 558. 3. Appeal.—Vide notification no. 2279-508-H. published in M.P. Rajpatra, Extraordinary, dated 25-1-1953, at p. 499 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 4, the State Government are pleased to appoint the President, Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh, to be the ofÏcer for the purpose of said section. The right to prefer an appeal against the Registrar's order prescribed by (4) necessarily implies that the person must be a party to the 13 proceedings before the Registrar. This sub-section also seems to be confined in its operation to persons who are before the Registrar or who could have appeared before the Registrar under Section 5 (2). Abdul Karim Khan v. M.C. Raipur, AIR 1965 SC 1744, 1966 MPLJ 58 (SC). 4. Trust must be registered by Collector and not by Addl. Collector.—A trust was ordered to be registered by the Additional Collector. This order was challenged on the ground that the Collector can only act as Registrar which the High Court accepted and quashed the order of Additional Collector. Later on the petition was moved for registration of the trust before the Collector. However, the Act was amended by the State Government validating the act of the Additional Collector and the Collector validated the order passed by the Additional Collector. Such a validating order is not sustained as the Amending Act did not affect the orders passed by the High Court, Budhulal v. Registrar of Public Trust, Jabalpur, 1966 JLJ Note 25: 1966 MPLJ Note 63. 5. To prove contravention what are the matters to be proved.—On reading Section 4 (1) it is plain that two things must be satisfied before it can be said that there was contravention of this section; namely must be a public trust and (2) that the person to be prosecuted must be the working 14 trustee. Nathoo Ram v. Registrar Public Trusts, Sagar and another.” 7. In Section 4(1) of the Act of 1951, it is categorically stated that within three months from the date on which this section comes into force in any area or from the date on which a Public Trust is created, whichever is later: the working trustee of every Public Trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the Public Trust. 8. In Section 4(5) of the Act of 1951, it is categorically stated that an appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub- section (4) may be filed within thirty days of the order before such ofÏcer as State Government may, by notification, appoint and, subject to the decision in such appeal, the order of the Registrar under sub-section (4) shall be final. 9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first round, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 for registration of the property was dismissed by the SDO (Revenue)-cum-Registrar holding that he is not having jurisdiction. When the said order was assailed before the Collector, the Collector remitted back the matter while directing the SDO to pass appropriate orders regarding registration under Section 4 of the Act of 1951. The SDO has dismissed the application stating that the land in question is situated at Village Kurra. One Ram Mandir is situated there. The name of petitioner is recorded as Sarvarakar of the 15 temple and adjoining land. It was a private land in which temple was constructed and in the revenue records it was recorded in the name of Deity, Sarvarakar being the petitioner. In the present matter, there seems to be dispute regarding title which is not the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act of 1951, as such the application has been dismissed. It is worthwhile to mention this fact that earlier when such a dispute arose the petitioner filed a civil suit stating that it is a private property belonging to the ancestors of the petitioner and it is a Private Trust and as such the application for registration of the same under the Public Trust is not maintainable. He has filed a suit for title before the Civil Judge Class II, Kurud in which vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2012 while dismissing the suit preferred by the present petitioner. It was held that the plaintiff could not prove his case that the Ram Mandir, Kurra including suit property is Private Trust property of the temple. But, at the same time, entry of Prabandhak (Manager Collector) in revenue records relating to suit property was also held to be invalid, therefore, the suit is partly allowed. It was further held that the entry of Prabandhak Collector in relation to suit property without giving notice to the plaintiff is declared illegal and it is directed that the said entry, i.e., Prabandhak Collector be removed from the revenue records. At the same time, it was further directed that if any such entry is proposed to be made in future, it should not be done otherwise than the procedure prescribed by law. The aforesaid judgment and decree was 16 challenged by the petitioner as well as the respondents herein in two separate appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed, as such the order of the Trial Court by which the plaintiff’s suit was partly allowed has attained its finality. Now the question would be whether the Collector is empowered to entertain an appeal as per Section 4(5) of the Act of 1951. From perusal of the Act of 1951, it is quite vivid that the appeal should be filed before such ofÏcer as the State Government may notify. In the present matter, the then State of Madhya Pradesh has in its gazette notification dated 25.1.1953 has conferred power under Section 4(5) of the Act of 1951 to the President of Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, as such as per aforesaid gazette notification the appellate authority would be the President, Board of Revenue and not the Collector. Accordingly, the Collector was not having jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 4(5) of the Act of 1951. the appropriate authority would be the President, Board of Revenue. It is well settled principle of law that the authority cannot travel beyond limits of its jurisdiction carved out by law and if such an order has been passed without jurisdiction it would be nullity. Since the appeal has been decided by the Collector whereas according to the aforesaid gazette notification, it ought to have been decided by the President, Board of Revenue, as such the order passed by the Board of Revenue is without jurisdiction and it is a nullity. 17 10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue by which it has confirmed the order of Collector and Commissioner is hereby set aside and quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 11. The parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh