1 2025:CGHC:17738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 10 of 2020 1 - Vinod Khandelwal S/o Late Guljarimal Ji Khandelwal Aged About 72 Years President Maa Vidhyavasini Bilaimata Mandir Trust Samiti Dhamtari Tehsil And District Shamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - The Registrar Public Trust Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Tehsildar Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv. Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29-7-2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (CG) in Misc. Civil Suit No. 8/2017, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Sections 26 and 27 of the CG Public Trust Act, 1951 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act, 1951’), has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell, as projected by the appellant/applicant is Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.24 17:26:08 +0530 2 that, he is Chairman of माँ िሷध्यासि नी बिलाई माता मंबिर ट्रस्ट बिमतित, धमतरी (henceforth, referred to as ‘the Trust’) and Tatyarao Babar, Harshad Mehta and Jagdish Goyal are its trustees. Since election of the Trust was not held, therefore, the Tehsildar, Dhamtari was appointed as Administrator by the Respondent No. 1/Registrar-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari. After election of the appellant as Chairman of the Trust, he filed an application before the respondent No. 1/Registrar-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari to hand over the charge of the Trust, which was allowed by it vide order (Annexure A-4) dated 25-10-2016 subject to the condition that, election of members of the Trust shall be concluded within 3 months. Accordingly, within aforesaid period, members of the Trust were nominated and compliance report was also filed. But on account of false complaint made by Murli Manohar Sharma and Surya Ji Rao Pawar to the respondent No. 2/ Registrar-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari, vide order (Annexure A-6) dated 6-3-2017 it again appointed Tahsildar, Dhamtari as Administrator of the Trust without providing any due opportunity of hearing to the appellant or members of the Trust, hence appellant filed application under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 1951 before the District Judge, Dhamtari. 3. After entering into appearance, the respondents/non-applicants therein filed their reply supporting the appointment of the Administrator of the Trust to regulate affairs of the same. 4. Learned Trial Court framed issues on the strength of pleading of the parties, recorded evidence and after considering the same, dismissed 3 the application filed by the appellant on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the respondent No. 1 while appointing respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar, Dhamtari as Administrator of the Trust. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that objector Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar were not members of the Trust, rather, only 10 persons were member of the Trust, but they (Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar) made false complaint alleging therein that, their ancestors were trustees of the Trust, but after death of their predecessors, they have not been inducted as member of the Trust. He further submits that, without providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, order dated 7-3-2017 (Annexure A-2) was passed by respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2/Tehsildar, Dhamtari has been appointed as Administrator of the Trust, but these aspects have not been considered by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, therefore, said order may be set aside. 6. In reply, learned State counsel would submit that, माँ िሷध्यासि नी ेी मंबिर, धमतरी was constructed by Smt. Chandrabhaga Bai Pawar and to regulate affairs of the Temple, the Trust was constituted but, as per the complaint made by Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar, successors of earlier trustees, who died, were not inducted as members of the Trust and on being complaint received in this regard, order (Annexure A-2) dated 7-3-2017 has been passed by the respondent No. 1/ Registrar, Public Trust, Dhmtari in the interest of the Trust. The order impugned does not suffer from any perversity or 4 illegality, hence the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure A-2) dated 7-3-2017 passed by the respondent No. 1/Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari shows that, the order was passed in pursuance of complaint made by Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar in respect of not inducting necessary persons as members of the Trust. Copy of the complaint made by Murali Manohar Sharma has been filed as Annexure A-5 by the appellant in instant petition, though, the same has not been filed and proved by the appellant before the trial Court. 9. As per contents of the complaint (Annexure A-5), earlier, Pujari of the Temple was inducted as member of the Trust but, after his death, no Pujari has been inducted as member of the Trust to destroy the interest of the Pujari and his family. It seems that, similar complaint was filed by Suryaji Rao Pawar with regard to membership of the Trust, as he stated that माँ िሷध्यासि नी ेी मंबिर was constructed by Pawar family. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts, while filing application under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951 before the District Judge, the appellant ought to have made objectors as party/non-applicants, but without impleading them as party, who were necessary party in the instant case to decide the issue raised by him, aforesaid application 5 was filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Dhamtari. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 26 of the Act, 1951 provides procedure to be adopted by the Registrar on being application filed by any person, which reads thus :- “26. Application to Court for directions. (1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that,- (a) the original object of the public trust has failed; (b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or (c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust; he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard, direct such trustee, to apply to Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar. (2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court.” 6 12. Perusal of the aforesaid provision specifically shows that, when the complaint was made by Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar in respect of membership of the Trust, then the Registrar ought to have provided opportunity of hearing to the working trustees and thereafter he should have directed them to apply to the Court for direction, but no such procedure has been proved to be followed in instant case. Thus, it is found that, the Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari has also committed procedural mistake. But since without impleading necessary party i.e. Murali Manohar Sharma and Suryaji Rao Pawar as non-applicant, application under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951 has been filed by the appellant, therefore, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, instant first appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. This first appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak