1 2026:CGHC:13969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1187 of 2026 Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Jagdish Aged About 84 Years R/o Bans Tall Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Registrar Public Trust-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2 - Tahsildar Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya and Mr. Manharanl Lal Sahu, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging impugned memo dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued by Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG), whereby Tahsildar, Raipur has been delegated power to operate bank account of the Shri Ramchandra Swami Nagaridas Mandir Public Trust, individually by single signature. 3. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide Order dated 20.02.2018 passed by District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.167A/2014, the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur was directed to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to protect the interest of the trust BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.03.27 17:58:47 +0530 2 property until the appointment of a new trustees, so that no loss is caused to the trust. The said order has been upheld by this Court vide Order dated 08.5.2025 passed in FAM No.63/2018. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that in light of aforesaid orders, the Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG), has issued the impugned memo delegating the power to operate the bank account of the Trust individually under the single signature of the Tahsildar, Raipur. He further submits that as per Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act 1951), the Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trust and he may delegate his powers under Section 34A of the Act 1951 to any Revenue Officer of his district not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer. Despite that, the Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG), has delegated his delegated powers to the Tahsildar, Raipur, which is not permissible under Section 34A of the Act, 1951. Hence, it is prayed that impugned memo dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1) may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State seeks time to file reply. However, considering the limited issue involved in the matter, the prayer for grant of time to file reply is rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that to give effect to order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, the Registrar, Public Trust- cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG), passed an order dated 22.3.02018 directing the Tahsildar, Raipur to act in accordance with the order of the District Judge, Raipur and the said order has been approved by the Collector, Raipur. He further submits that in furtherance of Order dated 22.3.2018, the impugned memo has been issued by the Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG), directing the Tahsildar, Raipur to operate bank account of the aforesaid Trust under his 3 single signature, which is very well within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue), Raipur (CG), hence, it is prayed that this petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Vide Order dated 20.02.2018, the District Judge, Raipur directed that new trustees be appointed strictly in accordance with the Scheme of the Management and the order dated 30.01.2014. The said order has been upheld by this Court vide Order dated 08.5.2025 passed in FAM No.63/2018. More than 07 months have elapsed, however, new trustees have not been appointed. However, learned counsel for the State submits that it is under process. If that be so, then, the Collector, Raipur, who is the original Registrar, ought to have concluded the process expeditiously. 8. In aforesaid order, learned District Judge has further observed that the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to protect the interest of the trust property until the appointment of new trustees, so that no loss is caused to the trust. 9. Section 3 of the Act 1951 reads as thus:- 3. Registrar of public trusts.-(1) The [Collector] shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-section (3) of section 4 is situate in his district. (2) The Registrar shall maintain a register of public trusts, and such, other books and registers and in such form as may be prescribed. 10. Section 34(A) of the Act 1951 provides delegation of powers by the Registrar, which reads thus:- [34-A. Delegation of powers by Registrar.-Subject to the provisions of this Act and to such restrictions and conditions, as 4 may be prescribed, the Registrar may, by order in writing, delegate all or any of his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of a Sub- Divisional Officer.] 11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the Collector has been designated as the Registrar of the Public Trust under the Act of 1951. However, he is empowered to delegate his power to any Revenue Officer of his district not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer. 12. In the instant case, it appears that the Collector, Raipur has delegated his powers under Section 34A of the Act 1951 to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur. Consequently, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Registrar Public Trust is the competent authority to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Registrar under the Act 1951. In other words, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) himself is a delegated authority, therefore, he cannot further delegate his powers to the Tahsildar, Raipur to operate bank account of the said trust, as it is a settled principle of law that a delegated authority cannot further delegate its powers. Accordingly, the delegation of the power by the Registrar Public Trust-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur to the Tahsildar vide impugned memo dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1), authorizing him to operate the bank account of the said trust under his single signature, is contrary to the provisions of Section 34A of the Act 1951, therefore, the impugned memo dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1) is set aside. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands allowed. 14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini