TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable after the statutory appeal provided under the Act had already been availed of and dismissed, and (ii) whether the Registrar could entertain a correction application and alter an entry which had attained finality under the statutory scheme.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable after the statutory appeal provided under the Act had already been availed of and dismissed.
Analysis: The Act created a complete code for determining public trust entries and provided an appeal to the High Court against an order of the Court made under Section 27(3). Once that statutory appeal had been filed and dismissed, the order of the Court attained finality inter partes. In such a situation, resort to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to reopen the same controversy was not a proper exercise of discretion, since it would permit the statutory appellate structure to be bypassed and could result in conflicting decisions.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the High Court ought not to have entertained it.
Issue (ii): whether the Registrar could entertain a correction application and alter an entry which had attained finality under the statutory scheme.
Analysis: Under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act, the Registrar's findings and the consequent entries became final and conclusive subject only to the statutory suit remedy under Section 8. The entry made in case no. 206 had already declared the temple and the shops to be trust property of the public trust. In that statutory setting, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter through a correction application and record the property as a private trust. The proper course for any aggrieved person was to institute a civil suit within the time prescribed by the Act.
Conclusion: The correction order was without jurisdiction and could not displace the final statutory entry.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside, the statutory order in favour of the public trust was restored, and the contesting respondents were left free to work out their remedy by suit within the period granted.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a self-contained mechanism of determination, appeal, and civil suit for challenge, a party who has exhausted the statutory appeal cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to reopen the same final order, and an administrative authority cannot, by a correction application, override an entry that has become final under the statute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
