Shri Shivji Virajman Mandir thru. Jitendranandra @ Jitendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Raebareli and another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CIVIL REVISION No. - 54 of 2025

Shri Shivji Virajman Mandir Thru. Jitendranandra @ Jitendra Tiwari

Versus enra war .....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Raebareli and another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhinav Singh, Shashank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶5

Court No. - 6

¶6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vikram Soni, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

By means of the instant civil revision, the revisionist assails the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the District Judge, Raebareli in Misc. Civil Case No.2/2021, whereby the petition preferred by the revisionist under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (in short, 'the Act, 1882') has been rejected.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that upon two grounds, the petition of the revisionist was dismissed by the Court concerned. It is pointed out that the first ground which prevailed with the Court and as indicated in Paragrapg-15 of the impugned order would reveal that the revisionist is said to have no right, being the power of attorney holder, to alienate the property. The second ground upon which the petition came to be dismissed was that the rejection is based on the premise that the entire land situate at Fatehpur District is sought to be alienated, whereas it was the clear case of the revisionist that the permission was being sought insofar as the land situate in Gram and Post Ramayeepur Kala, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli. It is thus, urged that the aforesaid two grounds are contrary to the records, hence, the order rejecting the petition is per se beyond the material

¶10

CLRE No. 54 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

available on record, hence, it deserves to be set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court to the power of attorney holder on the basis of which the petition was moved, a copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure No.2. It is stated that internal page 2 of the said registered document, there is a clear recital that the power of attorney holder would have the right to enter into an agreement or alienate the property of the Trust situate at Mauja Ramayeepur, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli and it is submitted that this in itself indicates that the order impugned has been passed without due application of judicial mind.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material including noticing the averments made in the petition, preferred under Section 34 of the Act of 1882, a copy thereof which has been brought on record as Annexure No.4, would indicate that the permission was sought insofar as the property situate in District Raebareli is concerned and not situate at Fatehpur District, but a larger issue still arises as to whether the permission as sought by the revisionist would be granted in terms of provisions contained under Section 34 of the Act of 1882.

¶15

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the revisionist as to the nature and status of the trust to which it was answered that it is a public charitable trust. That being so, the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1882 would not come to the aid of the revisionist and to that extent, the petition could not have been allowed, though, it was dismissed for different reasons.

¶16

The District Judge concerned while rejecting the said petition also noticed that there was no material brought on record by the revisionist to indicate the emergent circumstances and how and why the property requires to be sold, the necessary concomitant relating to the valuation as well as other documents required to form a subject satisfaction that the property of the trust required alienation for a larger and a better utilization of the funds and in the interest of the trust itself was not present.

¶17

In this view of the matter, since there was no material placed before the

¶18

CLRE No. 54 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the revisionist to move an appropriate application before the appropriate Court with necessary material, which shall be considered on its own merits.

¶21

It is made clear that mere dismissal of this revision may not be taken as an expression or opinion on merits of the contentions and genuineness of the need of the trust to alienate the property.

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶23

December 3, 2025

¶24

Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Shivji Virajman Mandir thru. Jitendranandra @ Jitendra Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Raebareli and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shivji Virajman Mandir thru. Jitendranandra @ Jitendra Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Raebareli and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammed Faez Hassan and 28 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Kumar Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ceiling and 12 Ors.

The State of U.P. Thru Collector Balrampur Vs the Additional Commissioner Admin Devi Patan and 4 Ors.

M/S Siddhi Associates Thr.Proprietor Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S S.K.Power Solutions Thru. Partner Mr.Shoeb Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Reg. Lko and 2 Others

Rajesh Yadav and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others