2007 (1) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Single Judge's Judgment, Directs State Compliance in Land Management Dispute

Deewan Singh & Ors. Versus Rajendra Pd. Ardevi & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside modifications by the Division Bench of the High Court. It directed the ... Whether the State Government is obligated to constitute a committee of management of a public trust to which Chapter X of the Act applies? Whether the constitution of such a committee of management falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the State Government? Chapter X comprises of 14 sections beginning from Sections 52 to 65 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959? Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and its provisions.2. Management and denominational character of Shri Rikhabdevji Temple.3. Obligations of the State Government under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act.4. Discretionary power of the State Government in constituting a committee of management.5. Interpretation of the term 'agency' under Section 77 of the Act.6. Applicability of the principle of estoppel and res judicata.Detailed Analysis:Validity of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and its Provisions:The Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in Rajasthan. The Act's provisions, particularly Sections 52 and 53, were questioned for their validity. The High Court had earlier upheld the Act, and the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into the validity of the Act again since the notifications under Section 52 had already been issued and published.Management and Denominational Character of Shri Rikhabdevji Temple:The core issue was whether Shri Rikhabdevji Temple was a Jain temple or a Hindu temple. The High Court and the Supreme Court both concluded that the temple is a Jain temple. The High Court had earlier directed the State to constitute a committee for the temple's management, which was not done within a reasonable time, leading to further litigation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the temple is a Jain temple and directed the State to comply with earlier orders.Obligations of the State Government under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act:Sections 52 and 53 of the Act mandate the State Government to publish a list of public trusts and constitute a committee of management for such trusts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the State Government's role in constituting a committee of management is imperative and not discretionary. The State had issued notifications under Section 52, but the formation of the committee was delayed, leading to the court's intervention.Discretionary Power of the State Government in Constituting a Committee of Management:The Supreme Court clarified that the State Government does not have discretionary power in constituting a committee of management under Section 53. The use of the term 'shall' in the Act indicates a mandatory obligation. The court held that the State Government must constitute the committee as required by the Act, rejecting the notion of any discretionary jurisdiction.Interpretation of the Term 'Agency' under Section 77 of the Act:Section 77 exempts public trusts administered by any agency under the control of the State Government from the Act's provisions. The court interpreted that the Devasthan Commissioner, being a statutory authority, does not qualify as an 'agency' of the State. Therefore, the temple does not fall under the exemption provided by Section 77, and the provisions of Chapter X of the Act apply.Applicability of the Principle of Estoppel and Res Judicata:The State had previously contended that the temple was a Hindu temple, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in earlier litigation. The principle of estoppel prevents the State from taking a contradictory stance now. The Supreme Court held that the principles of res judicata apply, and the issue of the temple's denominational character cannot be reopened.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and set aside the modifications made by the Division Bench of the High Court. The court directed the State Government to comply with the judgment within four months, emphasizing the mandatory nature of constituting a committee of management under Section 53 of the Act. The appeals by the Swetamber Jain sect and the Digamber Jain sect were allowed, while the appeals by the State Government were dismissed with costs.