In a PIL concerning temple land usage and fair arrangement, the High Court at Nagpur held that the petition could not be decided due to lack of evidence and absence of necessary parties, thus dismissing it with points kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Order
1709pil50.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 50/2014.
Karnadharsingh @ Jaisingh Vitthalsingh Thakur
-VERSUS-
The State of Maharashtra and others.
____________________________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.R BORA, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.
Heard.
By this petition, which is registered as
a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.3 Collector, Washim
to permit the petitioner and the public in Mangrulpir City, particularly the Laxminarayan Temple Trust to arrange the fair of Birbalnath Maharaj every year on land survey no. 217/2. A
direction is also sought to the Chief Executive
Order
1709pil50.14
2
Officer, Municipal Council, Mangrulpir to withdraw the building permit granted in favour of the respondent nos. 13 and 14 by the order dated 11.09.2013.
The petitioner claims to be a Social Worker and according to him, since Birbalnath Maharaj Fair was organized and arranged on the land in question every year from 1928. According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to the predecessor in title of the respondent nos. 10 and 11, and the same was donated by the predecessor in title of the respondent nos. 10 and 11 to the Laxminarayan Temple Trust. According to the petitioner, the Trust was not entitled to sell the land to the respondent nos. 4 to 9, as it is a Class-II land. It is pleaded that the respondent nos. 4 to 9 illegally purchased the land from the respondent nos. 10 and 11 and got their names entered in the revenue records. It is averred in the petition that the Collector could not have granted permission to the respondent nos. 4 to 9 to convert
Order
1709pil50.14
3
the said land to non-agricultural use, especially when the dispute in regard to the ownership was pending. It is further averred in the petition that the respondent nos. 14 and 15 who have purchased the land from the respondent nos. 4 to 9 are illegally making construction thereon by securing the permission from the Municipal Council. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for a direction to the Laxminarayan Temple Trust to arrange the fair of Birbalnath Maharaj every year on the land in question.
On a perusal of the Petition and the prayers made therein, it appears that the issues involved in this petition cannot be decided without permitting the parties to tender evidence, both oral and documentary. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the issue – whether Laxminarayan Temple Trust is a Public Trust or Private Trust is pending before the Charity Commissioner. Though the petitioner has sought a direction to the Trust to arrange the fair of Birbalnath Maharaj on the land
Order
1709pil50.14
4
in question, the petitioner has not joined said Laxminarayan Temple Trust as a party to the petition. The land changed hands at least on three occasions. According to the petitioner, the land was donated by the predecessor in title of the respondent nos. 10 and 11 to the Trust and the same was sold by the Trust to the respondent nos. 4 to 9, who in turn transferred the land to the respondent nos. 13 and 14. The petitioner has not pointed any reason, much less any valid reason for seeking a direction against the Municipal Council, Mangrulpir for withdrawing the construction permission dated 11.09.2013.
In the facts of the present case as narrated herein above and also the other facts which are averred in the petition, it would not be possible for this Court to decide the issues involved in the petition and issue directions to the respondent no.3 Collector, the Laxminarayan Temple Trust, which is not a party to the petition and the Municipal Council, Mangrulpir, by
Order
1709pil50.14
5
granting the prayers made in prayer Clause (i) and (ii) of the petition.
In view of the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Rgd.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the PIL regarding temple land dispute and fair arrangement can be decided without evidence and proper parties.
Whether directions can be issued to non-parties like the Municipal Council and Collector.
Karnadharsingh @ Jaisingh Vitthalsingh Thakur
The State of Maharashtra
Vasanti A. Naik
P.R Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
