1 2025:CGHC:59658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 12.09.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 09.12.2025 ORDER UPLOADED ON 10.12.2025 WPC No. 2842 of 2023 1 - Gosai Ram Sinha S/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Tengnabasa, Chhura Block- Ghhura, Tahsil - Griyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Khilawan Sinha S/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Tengnabasa, Chhura Block- Chhura, Tahsil – Griyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Devki Bai D/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 80 Years R/o Village- Dumarpali, Block- Bagbahara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Madan Bai D/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 76 Years R/o Village- Atarmara, Chhura Block- Chhura, Tahsil - Griyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Narad Bai D/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 78 Years R/o Village- Tengnabasa, Chhura Block- Chhura, Tahsil - Griyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Mathura Bai D/o Late Shri Budhram Sinha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Dadargaon, Chhura Block- Chhura, Tahsil - Griyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Hemlata D/o Late Shri Narayan Sinha Aged About 45 Years W/o Shri Sant Ram Sinha, R/o Village- Belar, Tahsil - Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 11 - Santram Sinha S/o Rameshwar Sinha Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Belar, Tahsil - Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri J.N.Nande, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA For Respondent No.10 &11 Shri Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the SDO (Revenue) Chhura, District Gariyaband whereby a management committee was constituted for Shri Radha Krishna Mandir situated at Village Tegnabasa. The petitioner claims that the temple is a private family endowment build and managed by his late father Budhram Sinha as per instruments of settled dated 15.03.1960 and 11.11.1974 without formal trust creation. In other words, he contends that the temple was established and managed privately by his father late Budhram Sinha and family members based on instruments for settlement in 1960 and 1974 without constituting a formal trust under the Indian Trust Act or the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act. The Sub Divisional Officer acted without jurisdiction and in an arbitrary, illegal and unlawful manner by interfering in the private management of the temple, which does not fall under the purview of the Public Trust Act, 1951. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the temple of Lord Shri Radha Krishna was constructed by the father of the petitioner Late Budhram Sinha in the year 1942 at village Tegnabasa, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband. Budhram Sinha executed instruments of settlement in the year 1960 and 1974 donating land specifically for the temple’s management and service of the deity but did not create a formal trust. 4 After his death in the year 1975, followed by his elder son Narayan’s demise, the petitioner as surviving son, inherited the responsibility of managing the temple according to family customs and Hindu sacraments. Respondent No.10’s repeated applications before the revenue authorities-from Tahsildar (2003, rejected via Gram Panchayat resolution), SDO (Revenue) Chhura (19.08.2013, claim rejected but initial committee formed), Additional Collector (28.04.20214, committee quashed for excluding heirs, remitted for fresh committee under trust provisions), Additional Commissioner (05.01.2017, appeal rejected) and CG Revenue Board (12.10.2021, revision withdrawn) culminated in SDO’s impugned order dated 20.04.2023 constituting a new committee headed by Tahsildar, Chhura, including family members and respondent No.10 despite prior rejection of public trust registration on 16.09.2022. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the temple is a private family establishment “Kul-Devta” managed under a settlement, not a formal public or private trust. The Public Trust Act 1951 is inapplicable as the temple’s management is not a public trust activity or of wider public interest but remains private. The order by the Sub Divisional Officer (respondent No.3) forming a management committee is ultra vires, lacking jurisdiction and legal authority because no formal trust exists. He submits that the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by respondent NO.3, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) constitutes a gross jurisdictional error patently arbitrary and violative of settled principles governing private religious endowments. 5 4. Firstly, the Shri Radha Kirshna Mandir at village Tegnabasa stands unequivocally as a private family temple, erected in the year 1942 by the petitioner’s father late Budhram Sinha, as the family’s Kul- Devta shrine funded from his personal resources on his private land, and managed hereditarily through instruments of settlement dated 15.03.1960 and 11.11.1974. This instrument evince a clear dedicatory intent for deity service sans any formal trust creation under the Indian Trusts Act,1882 or the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (as applicable). Such private settlements, rooted in Hindu customary law, confer shebait-like rights upon family members, insulating the institution from State interference absent public character-sine qua non for invoking public trust statutes. The temple’s exclusively family pooja, rituals and management, unchallenged for decades post Late Budhram Sinha’s demise in the year 1975 and elder brother Narayan’s death, affirm its non-public nature. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court’s exposition in Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuma Mhow Vs. Sub Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trust and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 104, distinguishing mathas and family deities from public endowments and holding that mere public access does not transmute private dedications into public trusts. 5. Secondly, the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 delineates jurisdiction exclusively for public trusts under Section 4 requiring mandatory registration, public interest activities and oversight by the Collector (not SDO). The own order of SDO (Revenue)/Respondent 6 No.3 dated 16.09.2022 explicitly rejected respondent No.10’s trust registration plea, holding the temple “of private nature” and unregisrterable under Section 4. Yet the impugned order brazenly constitutes a “management committee” headed by Tehsildar Chhura including disputants, purportedly upholding the petitioner’s sole management. This non-application of mind renders the order void ab initio, ultra vires Sections 5 and 18 of the Act vesting powers solely in Collector and violative of Article 14’s arbitrariness doctrine as laid in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union fo India (AIR 1978 SC 597). In analogus facts, the Madras High Court (WP No. 14789 of 2023) has quashed similar overreach affirming “govt. cannot act as if temples can never be managed by private persons”. 6. Thirdly, the respondent No.10’s motivated claims-spawned post marriage demands for shares in dedicated property cannot legitimize State intrusion into private religious affairs, a fundamental right under Article 25 read with Article 26. Prior revenue adjudications bar re- agitation via collateral attacks. No efficacious alternative remedy exists as revenue hierarchies exhausted confirm jurisdictional defect warranting certiorari and mandamus. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash the order and affirm petitioner's hereditary management per settlements-lest family devotions be subverted by administrative fiat. 7. Counsel for the State vehemently denied all the material averments in the petition and submits that the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 flows from legitimate 7 administrative exercise to resolve festering family disputes over Shri Radha Krishna Mandir’s management, triggered by the directions of the Collector Gariyaband on the application of respondent No.10. Revenue records historically denote the Collector as ”Prabandhan” necessitating inquiry vide notices, paper publication and Gram Panchayat proposals for a neutral committee-not trust creation contra petitioner's strawman. He submits that no jurisdictional ouster arises, SDO as Deputy Collector exercises delegated trust oversight under Chhattisgarh Public Trust read with revenue manuals for endowment disputes, ensuring transparent management amid proven mismanagement claims (petitioner’s sole control post intoxicant brother’s death). 8. Counsel for the State defended the impugned order as administrative resolution of family disputes as per the directions of the Additional Collector dated 28.04.2012, clarifying no formal trust creation occurred but a Mandir Prabandhan Samiti was formed post notice and inquiry to ensure proper management, given revenue records listing Collector as prabandhak and objector’s claims. They denied misinterpretation of the prior order of SDO dated 19.08.2013, emphasized gram panchayat proposal for committee constitution and reserved para wise reply, contending the petition lacks merit against lawful revenue process regulating temple affairs sans public trust invocation. 9. Counsel for the respondents No.10 & 11 submits that the petitioner has challenged the order whereby a management committee 8 was constituted for Shri Radha Krishna Mandir, situated at village Tegnabasa, established by the grandfather of the petitioner, late Budhram Sinha. The issue for consideration, as articulated is on threefold: (i) whether the contention of the petitioner that the legal status of the Shri Radha Kishna Mandir and the land dedicated to its deity, questioning whether they can be classified as ‘trust’ -either public or private without adherence to the requisite legal formalities. temple and the land dedicated to the deity thereof can be classified as a ‘trust’ - public or private-without adherence to the legal formalities mandated under law; (ii) whether the present petition is maintainable against an administrative order passed by the SDO appointing the management committee; and (iii) whether the SDO was empowered to pass the impugned order treating the temple as a public trust and directing management thereof. 10. On the first issue, it is submitted that a trust whether private or public must be constituted and managed as per legal frameworks like the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which requires the drafting and registration of a trust deed, compliance with statutory provisions regarding management and administration of trust property and establishment in accordance with relevant State laws and Registration Act. It is submitted that the petitioner’s claim that the temple and land constitute a legally recognized trust is fatally undermined by the absence of essential legal 9 documentation. 11. He submits that the petitioner has not placed any such deed or registration documents evidencing the creation of a trust-private or public -governing the temple and its properties. The absence of such documentation is fatal to the petitioner’s claim that the temple and land constitute a legally recognized trust. Therefore, the reasoned and well considered order passed by the SDO (Revenue) constituting the committee inclusive of the legal heirs and headed by the Tehsildar deserves validation as essential for the management and oversight of the temple particularly since the temple is frequented by the general public who participate in worship and offer donations to the deity. It is therefore submitted that the distinguished factor between a private and public trust is the nature of beneficiaries. Private trusts benefit specific ascertainable persons, while public trusts benefit the general public or a class thereof, often incapable of individual ascertainment. The principle to ascertain the public or private character of a temple was delineated by the Apex Court in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas, where continuous public worship, public use, funding through public subscription and maintenance with public funds established the public character of a religious institution. The temple was constructed on the land donated by late Budhram Sinha this undisputed fact is considered an important factor indicating that the temple was dedicated to the public. 12. The second issue, ie. the maintainability of the present petition 10 against the administrative function exercised by the SDO, it is submitted that the judgment of this Court in Hemraj Shriripali Prasad Vs.Ravi Prakash Pujari and Others, it has been held that once a temple is declared a public trust, authorities including the SDO possess jurisdiction to appoint trustees or committees for management in accordance with established schemes and after due enquiry. The SDO’s appointment of management committee is an exercise of administrative power to ensure proper governance of the temple assets and resolve familial disputes. 13. So far the third issue is concerned, it is submitted that the order of the SDO was passed after prior proceedings wherein the name of the Collector appears and ‘Prabandhak’ of the temple and such entries have remained uncontested for years attaining finality. The well established law as reflected in the matter of Geeta Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh empowers the SDO acting under delegated authority to regulate management committees of trusts or temples where disputes arise. The order dated 19.08.2013 directing removal of Sarvakar and constitution of the Mandir Prabandhan Samiti was implemented following appeals to higher authorities which have been disposed of and upheld. 14. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought to monopolize and operate the temple property as per his own will, ignoring the rights of all legal heirs and the necessity for oversight and transparency. The impugned order was passed with the consensus of all parties and reflected by signatures on the order sheet dated 20.04.2023 and 11 supported by the reply of the State. It is thus submitted that the public character of a temple is a matter of fact and law to be determined on multifarious factors including user, contribution and management rather than mere done or family ownership. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. On perusal of the record, the submsisions of the parties and the material available, the following crucial facts emerge: (i) the temple was constructed and the idol installed by the petitioner’s late father who dedicated certain land specifically for the temple’s management and deity service through private instruments of settlement and family arrangement. (ii) The petitioner’s family has managed the temple affairs for several decades based on customary usage and settlement without any registered trust deed under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, or the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951. (iii) the revenue authorities including the Sub Divisional Officer have previously declined registration of any public trust, consistently opining that the temple is private in nature and not registrable as a public trust under the Public Trust Act, 1951. (iv) Despite prior finality on the non-application of the Public Trust Act, the impugned order sought to constitute a management committee under Station administrative powers purportedly as a public trust. 17. The core question that arises for determination is whether the 12 Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 which primarily regulates public religious trusts with public character and registered trustees, applies in the present case where the temple is managed as a private family endowment based o n family settlement and customs. 18. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner clearly disclose the absence of any trust deed or formal registration with the relevant authorities as required to constitute a public trust under the said Act. The family management of the temple is well settled and the temple is a private religious institution devoted to the family deity (Kul-Devta). Judicial precedents, including those of the Apex Court consistently recognize the distinction between public and private trusts, the former aimed at public benefit and administration and the latter managed by ascertainable family members governed by settled customs. 19. The State’s reliance on administrative orders treating the temple as a public trust is contrary to its established private nature. The circular quoted by the respondents pertains to government controlled temples and does not extend to private religious endowments such as the present one. Previous orders recording the name of the Collector and Manager in revenue records have attained finality and do not override the private nature of the temple. 20. Exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court holds that the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 is not applicable to the present temple which is a private 13 religious endowment managed by the petitioner and his family members as per the instrument of settlement and family customs. The impugned order dated 24.04./2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer constituting a management committee under the premise that the temple is a public trust is without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. 21. The petitioner’s management of the temple with due regard to family customs and the intent of the settlor shall be safeguarded against unwarranted State interference. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.12.10 16:49:52 +0530