In a writ petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji Trust to set aside an order dated 22-06-2026 by the District Collector, District Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, an order dated 14-12-2021 by the Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue, Basoda, Vidisha, as well as to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the trust in the revenue records of the temple, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke partly allowed the appeal.
Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji Trust preferred an application under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code seeking correction of the revenue entries by incorporating the name of the registered trust in place of the existing entry relating to the temple. The application was rejected on the ground that the temple was government controlled and that revisional authority not only affirmed the rejection but also directed initiation of proceedings under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 for dissolution of the trust. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Orders Crocs to Pay ₹24.63 Lakh Costs to Bata in Design Infringement Suit
The Court found that the revisional authority was exercising jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 while examining the legality of the order by the Sub-Divisional Officer and stated that the scope of the revision was confined to the correctness of the order relating to the correction of the revenue entries. After perusing Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, the Court stated that the power to seek directions from the competent court was vested in the Registrar, who is required to be satisfied that any of the contingencies contemplated under clauses (a), (b), or (c) of sub-section (1) exists before invoking the said provision.
It was stated that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of the MP Land Revenue Code, the Collector proceeded to direct initiation of proceedings under Section 26, which was de hors the statutory scheme of Section 26 as the Registrar is required to record his satisfaction as per the procedure prescribed and afford an opportunity of hearing to the working trustee. Hence, it was held that the said direction in the impugned order dated 22-06-2026 could not be sustained in law. However, the Court did not find any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the other findings by the Collector.
The Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the said direction in the impugned order and keeping the remaining part of the order unaltered. It was clarified that this order would not preclude the Registrar, if otherwise empowered and satisfied as per Section 26, from taking recourse to such proceedings permissible in law. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
