{"id":19178,"date":"2009-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-13T01:54:14","modified_gmt":"2016-06-12T20:24:14","slug":"rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n           S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3208\/1996\n            Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vaishnav\n                            Vs.\n             The Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors.\n\n\nDate of Order ::   17th March 2009.\n\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\nMr.J.L.Purohit,for the petitioner.\nMr.Sanwal Ram Choudhary, Government Counsel.\n\n                         ....\n\nBY THE COURT<\/pre>\n
      By way of this writ petition, challenge is given to the<\/p>\n
order dated 01.07.1996 as passed by the Devasthan<\/p>\n
Commissioner of the State of Rajasthan at Udaipur (‘the<\/p>\n
Commissioner’ hereafter) dismissing the appeal (No.16\/1991)<\/p>\n
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.1991<\/p>\n
as passed by the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner, Jodhpur<\/p>\n
(‘the Assistant Commissioner’ hereafter) whereby the temple<\/p>\n
in question was held to be a public trust and was ordered to be<\/p>\n
registered as such under the provisions of the Rajasthan<\/p>\n
Public Trusts Act, 1959 (‘ the Act of 1959’).\n<\/p>\n
      Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
having examined the material placed on record, this Court<\/p>\n
finds the impugned order as passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Commissioner to be essentially an unreasoned order wherein<\/p>\n
neither the contentions as urged on behalf of the appellant-
\n                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner have been dealt with nor the reasons behind the<\/p>\n
conclusion have been stated with reference to the material<\/p>\n
available on record; and, therefore, the appeal is proposed to<\/p>\n
be remanded to the Commissioner for decision afresh and in<\/p>\n
accordance with law. In this view of the matter, only a brief<\/p>\n
reference to the background facts and relevant aspects would<\/p>\n
suffice.\n<\/p>\n
      The dispute relates to a temple located near village Pal,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur that is sought to be claimed by the petitioner to be his<\/p>\n
private temple having been constructed and managed by his<\/p>\n
ancestors and now by himself. Upon receipt of a complaint<\/p>\n
that the temple in question was a public property and the<\/p>\n
persons incharge of the affairs of the temple were misusing<\/p>\n
the income and were intending to alienate its property, the said<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner got the matter examined by the<\/p>\n
Inspector concerned; and after receipt of the report suggesting<\/p>\n
that it were a public trust and liable to be registered under the<\/p>\n
Act of 1959, proceeded to issue notices under Sections 17<\/p>\n
and 18 of the Act of 1959 for the requisite inquiry. After filing of<\/p>\n
the reply by the petitioner and so also the objections by other<\/p>\n
persons; and after taking the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
different parties including the petitioner, the learned Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner held the trust in question having commenced
\n                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
from installation of the deity by Kushal Dass, the ancestor of<\/p>\n
the petitioner,    and the petitioner being entitled to be<\/p>\n
recognised as the hereditary trustee but then, found the trust<\/p>\n
income to be more than Rs. 3,000\/- per annum and thus, held<\/p>\n
it requiring registration under the Act of 1959.<\/p>\n
      Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Commissioner under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 that has<\/p>\n
been dismissed by the impugned order dated 01.07.1996. The<\/p>\n
learned Commissioner has referred to the facts of the case;<\/p>\n
the findings as recorded and the directions as issued by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner; and the contentions as urged on<\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant that it were a private temple and merely<\/p>\n
for visit of a few devotees did not become a public temple. The<\/p>\n
learned Commissioner, thereafter, merely observed that the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced made it clear that the temple in question<\/p>\n
was a public temple; and that the petitioner Rameshwar Dass<\/p>\n
and his ancestors were engaged in sewa-puja after the temple<\/p>\n
was constructed by their forefathers. With these observations,<\/p>\n
the learned Commissioner concluded that there was no<\/p>\n
ground to interfere with the order as passed by the Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner contends that his ancestor Khushal Dass
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
constructed this temple of Hanumanji near village Pal, Jodhpur<\/p>\n
about hundred years back on the land belonging to him and<\/p>\n
did install a family deity that was worshiped by his<\/p>\n
descendants. While claiming himself to be the present existing<\/p>\n
descendant of Khushal Dass and Mahant of the said temple,<\/p>\n
the petitioner maintains that the temple in question, wherein<\/p>\n
resides his family deity, was constructed on the land belonging<\/p>\n
to the said Shri Khushal Dass. It is submitted that though the<\/p>\n
temple was intended for private worship, the owners of the<\/p>\n
temple had been permitting the members of the public to visit<\/p>\n
the same and to worship the deity but and nevertheless, the<\/p>\n
temple remains a private trust of the petitioner’s family and the<\/p>\n
petitioner is the Mahant of the said temple who had been<\/p>\n
managing the same without interference by anybody.<\/p>\n
      It is contended that in the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
14.03.1991, though the Assistant Commissioner recorded the<\/p>\n
findings that the temple had been managed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
Rameshwar Dass and his predecessors for 5 generations; that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was the hereditary Mahant and the sole trustee<\/p>\n
of the said temple; that the temple was established by Khushal<\/p>\n
Dass, the predecessor of the petitioner; and that the offerings<\/p>\n
are made in the temple by the visitors at their sweet will and<\/p>\n
are not collected through any donation box or receipt but then,
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
while holding that the total collection through offerings was<\/p>\n
more than Rs.3,000\/- per annum, held it to be a public trust<\/p>\n
requiring registration under the Act of 1959 without any<\/p>\n
justification. It is further contended that in the appeal taken by<\/p>\n
the petitioner several grounds were urged but the learned<\/p>\n
Commissioner dismissed the appeal without even stating the<\/p>\n
requisite reasons.\n<\/p>\n
      The order as passed by the learned Commissioner in<\/p>\n
dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner cannot be<\/p>\n
approved for the same being essentially an unreasoned order.<\/p>\n
Ordinarily, when the first Appellate Authority\/Court is having<\/p>\n
the final say on the facts; and when the findings of fact as<\/p>\n
rendered in the first appeal are taken final and rather binding<\/p>\n
unless suffering from perversity or misreading or such akin<\/p>\n
shortcomings, it is, as a necessary corollary, expected that<\/p>\n
the judgment of the first Appellate Authority\/Court is complete<\/p>\n
and self-contained with sufficient, even if not elaborate,<\/p>\n
discussion to show that the concerned Authority\/Court has<\/p>\n
applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
and the issues calling for determination. Even when the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority\/Court would affirm the impugned decision<\/p>\n
of the subordinate Authority\/Court, a mere general expression<\/p>\n
of concurrence without giving any reasons cannot, ordinarily,
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
be taken sufficient.\n<\/p>\n
      Moreover, it is to be imbibed that in the scheme of the<\/p>\n
Act of 1959, the findings after enquiry as recorded by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act of 1959,<\/p>\n
are subject to only one appeal under Section 20 of the Act and<\/p>\n
else, the entries in accordance with the findings recorded by<\/p>\n
the Assistant Commissioner follow per Section 21 of the Act.<\/p>\n
The Commissioner is invested with the powers to deal with the<\/p>\n
appeal against the finding of the Assistant Commissioner<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 and in case of taking of<\/p>\n
appeal, the entries under Section 21 are made by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner in accordance with the decision of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner on such appeal. The entries so made under<\/p>\n
Section 21 of the Act of 1959, subject to the other provisions of<\/p>\n
the said Act, are treated final and conclusive. In such a<\/p>\n
scheme of the provisions of the Act of 1959, the necessity of<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Commissioner to deal with the<\/p>\n
contentions urged before him and recording of reasons of his<\/p>\n
decision cannot be over-emphasised; and even if not requiring<\/p>\n
the detailed, elongated, and encumbered order, the decision<\/p>\n
of the Commissioner ought to speak of the reasons prevailing<\/p>\n
with him with reference to the material on record and the law<\/p>\n
applicable to the case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
         In the present case, it is noticed that even the order as<\/p>\n
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, so far the requirement<\/p>\n
of compulsory registration under the Act of 1959 is concerned,<\/p>\n
had been more or less cursory in nature with one reference to<\/p>\n
the fact that according to the enquiry and the statements, the<\/p>\n
annual income was more than Rs.3,000\/-. And then, as<\/p>\n
noticed, the order as passed by the Commissioner is bereft of<\/p>\n
the reasons for the conclusions. The order as passed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner, does not show if<\/p>\n
the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner have been<\/p>\n
bestowed requisite consideration and in this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be<\/p>\n
served if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is<\/p>\n
remanded to the Commissioner for decision afresh in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
         Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent<\/p>\n
indicated above; the impugned order dated 01.07.1996 is set<\/p>\n
aside;           Appeal No.16\/1991 shall stand restored for<\/p>\n
reconsideration of the Devasthan Commissioner for the State<\/p>\n
of Rajasthan. The parties through their respective counsel<\/p>\n
shall stand at notice to appear before the said Commissioner<\/p>\n
on 27.04.2009.\n<\/p>\n
         There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this writ
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
         petition.\n<\/p>\n
                     (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
s.soni\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3208\/1996 Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vaishnav Vs. The Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 17th March 2009. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.J.L.Purohit,for the petitioner. Mr.Sanwal Ram […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nRameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1470,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009"},"wordCount":1470,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009","name":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-12T20:24:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dass-babu-lal-vais-vs-commissioner-devasthan-ors-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshwar Dass @ Babu Lal Vais vs Commissioner, Devasthan & Ors on 17 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}