SETH CHAND RATAN versus PANDIT DURGA PRASAD (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 28-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SETH CHAND RATAN 
A 
v. 
PANDIT DURGA PRASAD (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MARCH 28, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
MP. Public Trust Act, 1951-Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 26(2) and 27--
Application for registration of a temple as public trust-later withdrawn ard C 
the temple declared as private property-Second application by another person 
for registration of temple as different public trust-Temple declared as such-
later, records amended showing the lemple as private property-Application 
before Regislra1jor proper management of the trusl properly-Registrar m~e 
reference u!s 26(2) to Court for adjudication of validity of order amending the 
records-Amendment of Records held not valid by the Court-Appeal against D 
order of Court under the Act dismissed-Writ petition challenging the order 
of reference and order of the Court-Petition allowed hy Single Judge of High 
Court taking the view that order declaring the temple as public trust was due 
to clerical mistake and relied on inqui1y report ofSDO in the first application 
for registering the temple as public trust-Order of Single Judge upheld by E 
Division Bench-On appeal, held: The order declaring the temple as public 
trust was not on account of clerical mistake-The same having become final, 
it was not open to Registrar to correct the records, as the only remedy against 
it was a civil suit-Report of SDO in 1he first case having not been concluded 
in view of withdrawal application, cannot form basis of finding of High Court-
Writ petition not liable to be entertained since the remedy of statutory appeal F 
before High Court had already been availed and had attained finality. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 226 and 227-Jurisdiction under-
Scope of-In 1he event of availability of alternate statutory remedy-Held: 
When o statute provides a remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or 
liability, resort must be had to that particular remedy before seeking G 
discretionary remedy under Article 226-However, High Court can exercise 
the jurisdiction notwithstanding existence of alternative remedy where the 
authority taking action lacks complete jurisdiction, or there is violation of 
fundamenlal right or principles of natural justice or where the authority acted 
under the provision of law which is ultra Vires. 
H 
75 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C. R. 
A 
The temple in dispute had some shops in its precincts which were 
let out to tenants. Brother of respondent moved an application under M.P. 
Public Trust Act, 1951 for registration of the temple in dispute as Madan 
Mohan Mandir Trust, (public trust) and the same was registered as Case 
No.73. Another application was moved by father of appellant before the 
B Registrar for registration of the temple Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir 
and this application was registered as case No. 206. Thereafter, brother 
of respondent moved an application for withdrawal of his application 
No.73 stating therein that the temple was a private trust of his family and 
not a public trust and he had filed application for registration of the trust 
under some misconception about the provisions of the Act. Registrar 
C allowed the application for withdrawal.However, before passing the order 
of withdrawal, Registrar allowed Case No.206 and Maheshwari Panchayati 
Mandir had been registered as a public trust and the property including 
the shops in precincts thereof were shown to be the property of the trust. 
Brother of respondent thereafter again moved an application before the 
Registrar for correction of records and it was directed that the Mandir 
D be recorded as his private trust. Appellant then moved an application 
before Registrar for issuing appropriate directions for proper management 
of the trust property impleading the respondent and some tenants of the 
shop as opposite parties. The Registrar by order dated 13.12.1983 held 
that the order passed in Case No.206 being of a binding nature, the validity 
E of the order for amendment of records by the Registrar had to be 
adjudicated upon by a Court under Section 26(1)(c) of the Act. Since the 
respondent had not moved the application, the Registrar made a reference 
to the Court under Section 26(2) of the Act. Additional District Judge 
decided the reference holding that the order of amendment of records was 
not in accordance with law and was not binding. It directed to handover 
F the management of Madan Mohan Mandir to the trustees and Managers 
of Mahes

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.