|||llli|l\||ll|||||ll|\|\||l|1||\| / MISC. PEIIHON No. >(’\’{ “0F wa. 1993., , l. Shiv/K mar, aged 36 years, son of Rangnath Pujari, rg§ident 0f Ram Mandir , Bémetra, District Durg. $5 16¢; A )~./ ... ‘PETITIGNERS. C Mauwunmg ¥{E R S'U s . ‘K\ The BeglStrar”Qg§llc Trust ”hm Collector, D ‘c The Sub Divisional 0f'- ‘Bemetra, District Burg. The‘Tahsildar, Bemetra, District §urg” Shri M.D. Diwén, Tah$ildar on transfer, Bemetra, District Burg. Shri Promod Shastri, Gangpara, Durg Road, Bemetra, District Durg. Shri Baldev Singh Thakur, Duxg Road, Near Ratan Talkies, LB&METTA, aistrict Durg. / , Continued on pager l noy 2 () ,2 .Shri Santosh Choube, Advocate, resident of Ward no. 8, Bemetra, District Durg. Shri Ganesh Prasad Purohit, resident of ward no. 4, Bemetra, District Burg. a1 Sharma, Jm resident 01f ward no. 9, Bemetra, Dis trict Durg: ,V _J Shri Ganpa‘tram Verma, resident o‘f mard no. 2, Bemetra, District Burg. H Shri Kishoril al Chandak, resident of Ward no». 3, Bemetra. Shri Rekhraj Sharma,‘Ward no.l, ‘ Pikri , Beme tra. Shri Ramkhil awan Sahu, Assistant Government Pleader, resident 9f Ward No. ,5, Bametra. Shri Hathulal Kasar, resident cf ward No, 6, Bemetra, District Burg. S t r1 Rae u. RESPONDENTS. , PETiTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTXTUTION OF INDIA FUR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTiORAm, MANDAWSJ pReHIBITION ETC,, ANp_ FOR APFROPRIATE FURTHER DIRECTIONS. > The petfm. oners, above named, beg to 311 Continued on page «no, {7% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 364/1993 Appearance: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 3, Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the respondents No.4 to 8 and 11 to 14. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (28.09.2010) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Ofhcer, Revenue, Bemetra acting as Registrar of Public Trust dated 28/09/1991 as also for a declaration that Shri Ramchandra Murti Mandir, Bemetra and its properties have not yet been declared as a public trust and the petitioners have a right to manage the same as heirs of Shii Rangnath Pujari and Shri Jarab Singh respectively. (2) Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the question as to whether Shri Ramchandra Swami Murti Mandir, Bemetra is a public trust or not was never ken into consideration and that in any case the earlier order passed PETITIONER Shiv Kumar Versus RESPONDENTS : The Reg‘strar, Public Trust cum Collector, Durg and others \9C by the District Judge cannot operate as resjudicata in this proceeding because the petitioner was never a party either in the proceeding before the District Judge or in the High Court of M.P. in MP. No.3821/91, Learned counsel would further submit that the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Bemetra has illegally usurped jurisdiction in passing the impugned order on 28/09/1991 in pursuance to the order passed by the District Judge about 19 years back and thus the said order deserves to be interfered. (3) Shii Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 to 8 and 11 to 14 have argued that the matter stands concluded by the Division Bench of MP. High Court in its order dated 28/01/1992 passed in M.P. No. 3821/91 and the present petition has absolutely no substance. t} (4) On perusal of the records, it would appear that the meeting of the Shri Ramchandra Swami Murti Mandir Trust Committee was convened on 21/01/1 959 for formation of the trust in pursuance to the communication received by the Committee from the onice of Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetra. On this date, the trust was formed and thereafter name of the trustees and the properties of the trust were entered in the Register of public trust maintained in the office of Registrar Public Trust, Bemetra. (5) When the committee thus formed a trust, some members of the Shri Ramchandra Swami Murti Mandir Public Trust filed an \ 3 . i ‘ 1 ‘J 9 application before the Registrar Public Trust about the mismanagement of the trust property and thereafter the Registrar referred the matter to the District Court under section 26 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The District Judge by its order dated 3rd March, 1962 passed in MJC No. 8/61 directed the Registrar Public Trust for removal of the trustees who were working at that time and for taking over the management of the trust in his own hands and to appoint new trustees and President for management of the trust property including recovery of arrears of rent. (6) The order passed y the District Judge appears to have remained unattended and thereafter one Shri Ganpat Ram Verma moved an application before Registrar Public Trust, Bemetra'under section 26 of the Act which was disposed of on 28/09/1991 (Annexure D-2). The Registrar appointed a committee in supervision of Tahsildar, Bemetra who will be functioning as managing trustee. (7) The order of Registrar Public Trust passed on 28/09/1991 was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of M.P. High Court in M.P. No. 3821/91. The petition was dismissed by the High Court‘on 28/01/1992 (Annexure D-5). In this order the contention of the petitioner about the discrepancy in the proceeding before the Registrar Public Trust, Bemetra was also noticed and rejected. There k © \ia is nothing in the record to demonstrate that this order was challenged b JP \ before the Supreme Court. Thus, this order has become fmal in so far as it relates to the trust. {8) It appears that after death of Shm' Rangnath Pujari, his son petitioner No.1 has preferred the instant writ petition on the ground that the orders are not binding on him, as he was not a party and that he being in possession of the properties belonging to the temple the formation of the trust and appointment of committee by order dated 28/09/1991 is mega]. (9) Having gone through the documents available on record particulary the order of District Judge passed on 3/03/1962, the order of Registrar Public Trust passed on 28/09/1991 and the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of MP. on 28/01/1992, this court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition has no substance, because the issue raised in this petition stands concluded by the earlier judgment of the High Court affirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Registrar Public Trust, Benietra on 28/09/1991 (10) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. f/ Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra M / Judge / 1 Q