[2026:RJ-JP:22353] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12989/2022 Girraj Vashishtha Son Of Ganga Sahai Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 35, Pratap Nagar, Old Ramgarh Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Sheela Mata Temple Trust, Amer (Jaipur), Head Office City Palace, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Chairman/secretary, City Palace, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner Devasthan, Sardarpura, Madhuban Udaipur. 3. Assistant Commissioner Devasthan (I), Mandir Shri Ramchadraji, Opp. Hawa Mahal, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madho Prapan Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh with Mr. Jigyash Patyal & Ms. Prisha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order REPORTABLE 1. Arguments Concluded on: 15.05.2026 2. Judgment Reserved on: 15.05.2026 3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Pronounced on: 27.05.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality, propriety, and validity of the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, and the subsequent appellate order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (2 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] 1959, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND: 2. Before adverting to the rival submissions and entering upon the realm of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is considered apposite to delineate the factual background and the circumstances, in a nutshell, which have culminated in the present adjudication: 2.1 The genesis of the present dispute stems from the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1959’). A registered Trust Deed dated 15.12.2008 was executed in relation to respondent No.1-Shri Sheela Mata Temple Trust. 2.2 Following the execution of the said Trust Deed, Form 8 was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, seeking to record the changes pertaining to the trustees and the immovable properties of the Trust. 2.3 The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, accepted the said Form 8 and directed that the changes related to the trustees and immovable properties be given effect to by causing the entries to be amended in the register in accordance with Form 4 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1962’). 2.4 After a lapse of several years, the petitioner, claiming to be a shebait of the Jamwai Mata Temple, challenged the aforesaid order [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (3 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] dated 30.04.2010 by preferring an appeal, bearing Appeal No. 13/2019, under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 before the Appellate Authority. 2.5 The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the subsequent impugned order dated 21.04.2022 on the ground of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the initial order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, as well as the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned orders are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and suffer from patent perversity, inasmuch as the mandatory statutory procedures were blatantly bypassed. 4. It was contended that the proceedings undertaken under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 are void ab initio. It was submitted that no notices came to be issued to the interested persons prior to amending the entries which constitutes non-compliance and gross violation of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1962, allowing the amendments to completely escape the scrutiny of the beneficiaries. Moreover, it was apprised that the Devasthan Department’s own circular dated 29.12.2017 makes it mandatory to publish the proposed inquiry under Section 23 in newspapers and the said circular has blatantly been ignored in the present case. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (4 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] on the ratio passed by this Court in Avedheshacharya vs. Devasthan Commissioner, (2024) 1 HCC (Raj.). 5. On the aspect of limitation, it was categorically contended that there is no statutory limitation prescribed to challenge an order passed under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, and that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Courts are only required to see whether there is sufficient cause and ought not to delve into the merits of the case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the present petition and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition as well as the active concealment of material facts by the petitioner. 7. It was stoutly submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The learned counsel apprised this Court that the petitioner deliberately and consciously concealed a material fact that the letters dated 03.07.2017 and 11.08.2017 addressed to the Chairperson of the Shri Sheela Mata Temple Trust and others, to which the petitioner himself is a signatory explicitly prove the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the Trust and the amended entries. It was further submitted that the petitioner actively suppressed the fact that an identical suit bearing Civil Suit No. 7/2018 titled Bhagwati Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. Shri Sheela Mata Temple Trust & Ors. has already been instituted before the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur, by other family members and shebaits seeking the identical relief. Highlighting the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in the said [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (5 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] suit regarding temporary injunctions, it was submitted that the shebaits are acting in active collusion to file multiple, frivolous, and parallel proceedings to challenge the existence and title of the Trust. 8. Qua the statutory scheme of the Act of 1959, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 20 was non-maintainable as an appeal under the said provision is strictly limited to a ‘finding’ recorded by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19. However, once the entries are formally amended in the register in accordance with Section 23(4), the scheme of the Act of 1959 leaves no scope to file an appeal under Section 20. An appeal under Section 20 can only be maintainable, if at all, up to the stage of ‘finding’ under Section 23(3) and not once the entries are amended. It was next submitted that once the entries are formally amended in the register in accordance with Section 23(4), the only legally permissible recourse for an aggrieved person is to institute a civil suit under Section 22 of the Act. 9. It was lastly submitted that the appeal in question was filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 10 years from the date of the impugned order and that the petitioner formulated a fictitious and concocted story claiming that he only derived knowledge of the amended entries during a visit to the Devasthan Vibhag on 09.04.2019. However, the concealed letters dated 03.07.2017 and 11.08.2017 irrefutably prove that the petitioner had actual, prior knowledge of the Trust and the entries [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (6 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] way before 2019, and therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the same as being barred by the period of limitation. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 10. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and upon an assiduous perusal of the material available on record, this Court has formulated the following views: 11. As a threshold matter, this Court must evaluate whether the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from any arbitrariness or jurisdictional error. The nitty-gritty of the instant dispute reveals that the petitioner preferred an appeal in the year 2019 against a foundational order that was passed way back on 30.04.2010 by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan which eventually came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2022 by the Appellate Authority. 12. Upon perusal of the order dated 21.04.2022, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned and speaking order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is pertinent to note, as also addressed by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, that the appeal against the order passed in the year 2010 had been preferred in the year 2019, after an inordinate and colossal delay of approximately 10 years. This Court is of the view that the petitioner attempted to construct a fictitious narrative to bypass the aforesaid delay by claiming sudden discovery of the order. However, as rightly held by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was in active and prior [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (7 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] knowledge of the order dated 30.04.2010, and the said fact has duly been corroborated by the letters dated 03.07.2017 and 11.08.2017 to which the petitioner himself was a signatory to the correspondences with the Trust, which irrefutably establish the fact that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the same. 13. The deliberate suppression of the letters dated 03.07.2017 and 11.08.2017 before this Court demonstrates that the petitioner has not approached the Writ Court with clean hands. Moreover, the petitioner actively suppressed the pendency of a parallel civil proceeding instituted by his own co-shebaits before the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur, seeking the identical sets of relief. It is a settled proposition of law that a litigant invoking the extraordinary and equitable writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must with due bona fides disclose all the material facts. This Court places reliance upon the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has severely deprecated the conduct of litigants who suppress material facts. It has categorically been held that litigant whose case is based on falsehood or concealment has no right to approach the Court and the petition can be summarily thrown out at any stage without being entitled to any equitable relief. 14. Adverting to the statutory framework of the Act of 1959, it is explicitly clear that Section 23(4) mandates that once entries in the register are amended, the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (8 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] shall strictly apply. It is pertinent to highlight that Section 22 of the Act provides a robust and specific statutory remedy, stating that any person aggrieved by an entry made in the register must institute a civil suit in a civil court to have such entry cancelled or modified. 15. The present lis involves contested and complex questions of fact regarding the historical rights of shebaits, the ownership of temple properties, and the administrative control of the Trust. It is a well-settled law that a Writ Court, exercising its jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily sit as a fact finding authority or conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed question of facts. Since the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 22 of the Act of 1959 to establish the civil rights, this Court is not inclined to delve into the disputed matter of facts by interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the Appellate Authority. CONCLUSION: 16. This Court deems it apposite to state that the judicial process cannot be allowed to be misused as a tool by litigants who sleep over their rights for over a decade and subsequently attempt to bypass statutory procedures through concealed and suppressed filings, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority acted strictly in accordance with the law and passed a well-reasoned and speaking order dated 21.04.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on account of being barred by the period of limitation. [2026:RJ-JP:22353] (9 of 9) [CW-12989/2022] 17. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan and the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being completely bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. 19. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy, strictly in accordance with the law, and that the disposal of the present petition shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits before the appropriate forum. 20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (SAMEER JAIN),J 168/Pooja