[2025:RJ-JP:5060] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2110/2020 R.D. Baheti Charitable Trust, Office G-7, Baheti Marg Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Its Trustee Shri Sanjay Baheti S/o Shri R.D. Baheti, R/o 7, Baheti Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Hanuman Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Badrinarayan Joshi, R/o 4819 K.G.B. Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Joshi, R/o 4819 K.G.B. Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Shri Praveen Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Joshi, R/o 4819 K.G.B. Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Shri Badri Ka Aashram Charitable Trust, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5. The Assistant Commissioner-I, Dev Sthan Vibhag Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. The Commissioner Dev Sthan Vibhag, Rajasthan, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aditya Choudhary, Mr. Adhiraj Modi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma for Mr. Amit Jindal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/02/2025 1. Petitioner-R.D. Baheti Charitable Trust preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 23.01.2020, challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner Dev Sthan Vibhag, Udaipur, dismissing its [2025:RJ-JP:5060] (2 of 4) [CW-2110/2020] appeal No.34/2016 and affirming the judgment dated 03.10.2011, passed by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Dev Sthan Vibhag, Jaipur, allowing the respondent No.4-Shri Badri Ka Aashram, Joshi Charitable Trust, to be registered as a trust under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, to manage and look after the properties of temple, situated at Khasra No.474 near Kanota, District Jaipur. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. It appears that vide judgment dated 03.10.2011, respondent No.4-Shri Badri Ka Aashram, Joshi Charitable Trust, was permitted to look after and manage the temple properties, situated in Khasra No.474 near Kanota, District Jaipur by the Assistant Commissioner-I, after relying upon the inquiry report of Tehsildar, Jaipur dated 24.08.2011. Undisputedly, the respondent no.4-trust did not claim any property rights over the temple properties and it was allowed merely to look after and manage the temple properties. It further reveals that before registration of trust, objections were invited by Assistant Commissioner but no objections by any person, including the petitioner trust, were submitted. Thereafter, following the procedure envisaged under the Act of 1959, the registration of trust was permitted. 4. It appears that the petitioner-trust challenged the registration of trust of respondent No.4 by way of filing appeal thereagainst before the Commissioner Dev Sthan Vibagh, Udaipur on 15.11.2016. The appellate authority viz. It further reveals that before registration of trust, objections were invited by Assistant Commissioner but no objections by any person, including the petitioner trust, were submitted. Thereafter, following the procedure envisaged under the Act of 1959, the registration of trust was permitted. 4. It appears that the petitioner-trust challenged the registration of trust of respondent No.4 by way of filing appeal thereagainst before the Commissioner Dev Sthan Vibagh, Udaipur on 15.11.2016. The appellate authority viz. Commissioner Dev Sthan Vibhag considered the grounds of challenge put forth by the petitioner-trust and dismissed the appeal with following fact findings:- [2025:RJ-JP:5060] (3 of 4) [CW-2110/2020] fu/kkZfjr mtznkjh vof/k esa fdlh dks dksbZ vkifRr izkIr ugha gksus ij v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Jh ^^cnzhdkJe** tks'kh pSfjVscy VªLV t;iqj dh vpy lEink ds laca/k esa fujh{kd] nsoLFkku foHkkx] t;iqj ,oa rglhynkj] rglhy t;iqj ls tkap fjiksVZ izkIr dh x;hA rglhynkj] rglhy t;iqj us muds i= dzekad 3176 fnukad 24-8-2011 }kjk tkap fjiksVZ is'k dh x;h fd ^^[kljk uEcj 474 jdck 1 ch?kk 4 fcLok tehu t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds uke ls gS] ftlesa 52 QqV guqekuth¼ewfrZ½ fojkteku gS o f'ko 'kadj Hkxoku dh ewfrZ ¼52 QqV½ fuekZ.k dk;Z pkyw gSA mDr [kljk uEcj esa iqjkuk efUnj guqeku th o f'ko'kadj Hkksys o lhrkjketh dk efUnj cuk gqvk gSA efUnj iqjkuk cuk gqvk gS tks Jh cnzhukjk;.k tks'kh ds }kjk cuk;k x;k gS mUgksaus Hkxoku Jh lhrkjke dh LFkkiuk djokbZ FkhA mDr eafnj dh iwtk ikB Jh guqeku tks'kh iqtkjh iq= Jh cnzhukjk;.k }kjk dh tk jgh gS ftldh O;oLFkk ,oa ns[kjs[k Hkh iqtkjh guqeku tks'kh gh djrs gSA** v/khuLFk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk rglhynkj] rglhy t;iqj dh mi;qZDr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 3-10-2011 ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd mDr vpy lEifRr dk LoRo lacaf/kr nLrkost eafnj ewfrZ ds uke ls ugha gSA bl izdkj bl izU;kl dh orZeku esa dksbZ vpy lEifRr ugha gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk mDr eafnj dks tulqfo/kkvksa ds foLrkj gsrq LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus vFkok gVk;s tkus ij izU;kl fdlh izdkj dh vkifRr ugha djsxkA izU;kl dks dsoy eafnj dh iwtk lsok] O;oLFkk djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA izU;kl Jh ^^cnzhdkJe** tks'kh pSfjVscy VªLV t;iqj ,d lkoZtfud izU;kl gS rFkk ;g izU;kl vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 19 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, Jh ^^cnzhdkJe** tks'kh pSfjVscy VªLV t;iqj dk iath;u fd;s tkus dk vkns'k nsrk gwWA 5. This Court does not find any manifest illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the judgment impugned dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner Dev Sthan Department, Udaipur dismissing petitioner's appeal. In addition, it may be observed that if petitioner-trust claims any property rights over the property in question, remedy under the law is available to petitioner for ventilating its grievances. Mere registration of respondent No.4, to look after and manage the properties of temple, does not frustrate [2025:RJ-JP:5060] (4 of 4) [CW-2110/2020] any legal right of petitioner-trust to establish its right, if any, hence the impugned judgments do not lead to any miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations, but without interference to the registration of respondent No.4-trust for the purpose of looking after and to manage the properties in question and to perform seva puja in the temple situated therein, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of. 7. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/54