Blog

Case Title: Partap Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11499/2022

Dated on: April 20, 2024 (Pronounced on)

Quorum: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati (presiding judge), Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Partap Ram, is the president of a registered trust that manages a temple in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The government decided to build a ring road and needed to acquire land, which included some land belonging to the temple. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired temple land. However, the compensation amount wasn’t given directly to the temple trust. Instead, it was deposited in the account of the Devsthan Commissioner, a government official who oversees religious endowments in the state. The temple trust argued that they should receive the compensation money directly. They claimed they are a registered trust and have the legal right to the money. The government argued that a circular they issued requires compensation for acquired temple land to go to the Devsthan Department. The department would then use the money to buy replacement land for the temple. The government also pointed out that the temple deity is considered a perpetual minor, and the trustee acts as a caretaker, so they shouldn’t have control of the money.

ISSUES

• Does the temple trust, as a registered legal entity managing the land, have the direct right to receive the compensation awarded for its acquisition by the government?
• Does the government’s circular mandating the deposit of compensation for acquired temple land with the Devsthan Department have legal standing and supersede the trust’s rights?
• Considering the concept of the temple deity as a “perpetual minor” and the trustee’s role as a caretaker, does it restrict the trust’s full control over the compensation money received for the acquired land?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (Act of 1959):

• This Act likely defines the legal framework for managing public trusts in the state of Rajasthan, including temples.
• Specifically, the judgement mentions Section 37 of this Act, which designates the Devsthan Commissioner as the “Treasurer of Charitable Endowments” for the state.
• This suggests the Act might grant the Commissioner some authority over the financial aspects of public trusts, potentially including compensation received for acquired land.

Government Circular (dated June 11, 2020):

• This circular, though not directly quoted in the judgement, is mentioned as a key argument by the government.
• The circular likely mandates that compensation awarded for acquired temple land should be deposited with the Devsthan Department.
• The court’s decision seems to acknowledge the validity of this circular, suggesting it might have legal weight within the context of land acquisition procedures.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, Partap Ram representing the temple trust, argued their case based on two main contentions that is they emphasised their status as a registered trust managing the temple according to Rajasthan law. This registration, they argued, grants them the legal authority to handle the temple’s affairs, including finances. As the legal custodians of the temple land, they claimed the full right to receive the compensation awarded for its acquisition by the government. The trust argued that the compensation amount awarded for their land should be directly deposited into their account. They contested the government’s decision to withhold the money and deposit it with the Devasthan Commissioner. By receiving the compensation directly, the trust likely aimed to have more control over how the funds would be used.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents, representing the State of Rajasthan and potentially other relevant government departments, countered the appellant’s claims with two key contentions that the government’s primary defence rested on a circular issued by the Revenue Department (possibly dated June 11, 2020). This circular, according to the respondents, mandated that compensation awarded for acquired temple land should be deposited with the Devsthan Department. By citing this regulation, the government argued that they followed the proper procedure and the Devsthan Commissioner was the rightful custodian of the compensation amount. The respondents introduced the concept of the temple deity as a “perpetual minor.” This legal concept suggests the temple itself cannot hold property or manage finances. In this context, the government argued that the temple trustee acts as a caretaker with limited financial control. By highlighting this limitation, the respondents likely aimed to justify withholding the compensation directly from the trust and placing it under the Devsthan Commissioner’s control, who they presented as a more responsible financial steward. Additionally, the government might have argued that the Devsthan Commissioner, acting under the aforementioned circular, would utilise the compensation to acquire alternative land for the temple, ultimately benefiting the temple itself.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

In analysing the case, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur primarily focused on two aspects: the government’s circular and the legal standing of the temple trust. The court acknowledged the existence of the government circular mandating the deposit of compensation for acquired temple land with the Devsthan Department. The court likely viewed this circular as a valid regulation within the framework of land acquisition procedures. By upholding the circular’s authority, the court recognized the Devsthan Commissioner’s role as outlined in the Rajasthan Public Trust Act (specifically Section 37). This section presumably designates the Commissioner as the “Treasurer of Charitable Endowments” for the state, potentially granting them control over financial aspects of public trusts, including compensation received for acquired land. While the court didn’t explicitly comment on the specific details of the temple trust’s registration, it didn’t challenge their legal existence or their role in managing the temple. However, the court’s acceptance of the government’s argument regarding the temple deity as a “perpetual minor” with the trustee acting as a caretaker likely influenced the final decision. This concept suggests the trust might have limitations on full financial control, including the compensation money. Based on the analysis, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Partap Ram on behalf of the temple trust. This decision implies the court sided with the government’s arguments. The court likely viewed the Devsthan Commissioner’s actions as lawful and aligned with the government circular and the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Essentially, the court ruled that the Devsthan Department, not the temple trust directly, would hold the compensation amount. The court’s reasoning focused on ensuring the proper utilisation of the compensation money for the benefit of the temple. By placing the money with the Devsthan Commissioner, the court might have considered them a more qualified entity to manage the funds and potentially use them to acquire alternative land for the temple, ultimately fulfilling the purpose of the compensation. The temple trust did not receive the compensation amount directly. The Devsthan Department will hold the money and use it, as per the government’s argument, to purchase replacement land for the temple.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement