{"id":46039,"date":"2009-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-15T19:35:18","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T14:05:18","slug":"shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n                Writ Petition C 4266 of 2009\n\n               Shri Dattatraya Mandir  Trust\n                                  ...Petitioners\n\n                                   Versus\n\n                1     State  of Chhattisgarh\n\n                 2     Collector  and Chairman\n\n                 3     Registrar  Public  Trust\n\n                 4     Taran  Prakash Sinha\n\n                 5     Shri  Chetan Dandawate\n\n                 6    Shri  Yashwant Rao Girepunje\n                                      ...Respondents\n\n\n!                     Shri Virendra Sharma\n\n^                     Shri Arun Sao\n\n CORAM:           Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J\n\n Dated: 11\/08\/2009\n\n: JUDGEMENT    \n<\/pre>\n<p>                             O R D E R Oral<\/p>\n<p>          WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION<br \/>\n          OF INDIA<\/p>\n<p>  1.   The  petitioner has filed this petition, impugning the<\/p>\n<p>       order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P\/1), passed by the Sub<\/p>\n<p>       Divisional Officer and Registrar Public Trust, Raipur in Case<\/p>\n<p>       No. 01 B\/113(4) year 2008-09 (Yashwant Rao Girpunje &amp; another<\/p>\n<p>       Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits<br \/>\nthat the petitioner Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust is a<br \/>\nregistered trust. On 19.8.2008 (Annexure P\/2) the petitioner-<br \/>\nTrust, through its trustee namely Shri Yashwant Rao<br \/>\nGirepunje\/Respondent No.6 filed an application under Section<br \/>\n9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short<br \/>\n`the Act, 1951&#8242;) in prescribed format to the respondent No.3<br \/>\nfor change of the entries in trust register for change of<br \/>\nnames of some of the trustees. The respondent No.2 after<br \/>\nfollowing the prescribed procedure passed the order on<br \/>\n12.1.2009 under Section 9 (2) of the Act, 1951. This order<br \/>\nwas conditional where names of the trustees were directed to<br \/>\nbe entered on furnishing five points information\/documents<br \/>\nwithin seven days, failing which the order was to be<br \/>\ncancelled automatically. The requisite conditions were<br \/>\nfulfilled on 19.1.2009 and consequently the entries were made<br \/>\nin the register as per the order dated 12.1.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Thereafter, the respondent No.5 (Shri Chetan Dandawate),<br \/>\nSecretary of the Trust, filed an application on 2.7.2009<br \/>\nbefore the respondent No.3 for quashing of the order dated<br \/>\n12.1.2009. By the impugned order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure<br \/>\nP\/1) the respondent No.3 cancelled the order dated 12.1.2009,<br \/>\nhence this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further<br \/>\nsubmits that Section 8 (1) of the Act, 1951 provides that any<br \/>\nworking trustee or person having interested in a public trust<br \/>\nor any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any<br \/>\nfinding of the Registrar may institute a suit in a Civil<br \/>\nCourt to have such finding set aside or modified. The<br \/>\nrespondent No.6 instead of filing a civil suit, being<br \/>\naggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009, passed by the<br \/>\nRegistrar, had filed an application\/complaint on 2.7.2009.<br \/>\nThe respondent No.3, contrary to the provisions of Section 8<br \/>\nof the Act, 1951 entertained the application\/complaint made<br \/>\nby the respondent No.6 and by the impugned order dated<br \/>\n25.7.2009 (Annexure P\/1) recalled the order dated 12.1.2009,<br \/>\nwhich is not sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties<br \/>\nand perused the documents appended thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Section 8 of the Act, 1951 provides for filing of civil<br \/>\nsuit against any of the findings of the Registrar, Public<br \/>\nTrust. The Registrar, Public Trust has passed the order dated<br \/>\n25.7.2009 (Annexure P\/1) under the provisions of Section 9<br \/>\n(2) of the Act, 1951. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the<br \/>\nAct, 1951 provides that &#8220;The provisions of section 8 shall<br \/>\napply to any finding under this section as they apply to a<br \/>\nfinding under section 6.&#8221; Thus, if a finding is recorded<br \/>\nunder the provisions of Section 9 (1) &amp; (2) of the Act, 1951,<br \/>\nan aggrieved party may move the civil Court against the<br \/>\nfinding of the Registrar, Public Trust. Thus, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas alternative statutory remedy of challenging the order of<br \/>\nthe Registrar, Public Trust, passed under Section 9 of the<br \/>\nAct, 1951, in civil suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Having perused the relevant provisions of law, it is<br \/>\nobvious that an alternative effective statutory remedy is<br \/>\navailable to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.<br \/>\nIt is well settled that normally the High Court should not<br \/>\ninterfere if there is an adequate, statutory, efficacious<br \/>\nalternative remedy is provided by the statute, party must<br \/>\nexhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ<br \/>\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   A Constitution Bench of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/941160\/\">K.<br \/>\nS. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and<br \/>\nOthers1,<\/a> observed that &#8220;the remedy provided for in Article<br \/>\n226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the<br \/>\nHigh Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any<br \/>\nwrit if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an<br \/>\nadequate or suitable relief elsewhere.&#8221; The said decision has<br \/>\nbeen referred and followed subsequently in a catena of<br \/>\ndecisions that if a relief cannot be granted by the appellate<br \/>\nauthority, the writ jurisdiction may be invoked. In the<br \/>\npresent set of facts, all the relief sought for by the<br \/>\npetitioner can be granted by the civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   On the question of availability of alternative remedy,<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/674013\/\">State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat<br \/>\nAmbuja Cement and<\/a> another2, observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;17.  We  shall first deal with the plea  regarding<br \/>\n          alternative  remedy  as  raised  by  the  appellant<br \/>\n          State.  Except  for a period when Article  226  was<br \/>\n          amended    by    the   Constitution   (Forty-second<br \/>\n          Amendment)   Act,  1976,  the  power  relating   to<br \/>\n          alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule<br \/>\n          of  self-imposed  limitation. It is  essentially  a<br \/>\n          rule  of  policy,  convenience and  discretion  and<br \/>\n          never  a rule of law. Despite the existence  of  an<br \/>\n          alternative  remedy, it is within the  jurisdiction<br \/>\n          of  discretion  of the High Court to  grant  relief<br \/>\n          under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the  same<br \/>\n          time,  it  cannot be lost sight of that though  the<br \/>\n          matter  relating  to  an  alternative  remedy   has<br \/>\n          nothing  to do with the jurisdiction of  the  case,<br \/>\n          normally  the  High Court should not  interfere  if<br \/>\n          there   is   an  adequate  efficacious  alternative<br \/>\n          remedy.  If  somebody  approaches  the  High  Court<br \/>\n          without  availing the alternative  remedy  provided<br \/>\n          the High Court should ensure that he has made out a<br \/>\n          strong  case  or that there exist good  grounds  to<br \/>\n          invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  10.  Further, applying the said ratio in <a href=\"\/doc\/314912\/\">U.P. State Spinning<\/p>\n<p>       Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.Pandey and<\/a> another3, the Court observed as<\/p>\n<p>       under:\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;21. <a href=\"\/doc\/1452602\/\">In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya<br \/>\n          Setu  Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh,<\/a> it was  held  that<br \/>\n          when  the dispute relates to enforcement of a right<br \/>\n          or obligation under the statute and specific remedy<br \/>\n          is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High<br \/>\n          Court should not deviate from the general view  and<br \/>\n          interfere  under  Article 226 except  when  a  very<br \/>\n          strong case is made out for making a departure. The<br \/>\n          person  who insists upon such remedy can  avail  of<br \/>\n          the  process as provided under the statute. To  the<br \/>\n          same   effect   are   the  decisions   in   <a href=\"\/doc\/321104\/\">Premier<br \/>\n          Automobiles  Ltd.  v.  Kamlekar  Shantaram   Wadke,<br \/>\n          Rajasthan SRTC<\/a> v. <a href=\"\/doc\/677526\/\">Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram<br \/>\n          Nikam  v.  Municipal  Corpn. of  Ahmedabad  and<\/a>  in<br \/>\n          <a href=\"\/doc\/1365916\/\">Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred.<\/a>&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  11.  This  Court  in  Writ Petition (C) No.  2164  of  2008<\/p>\n<p>       (Shivratan Agariya &amp; another Vs. State of Chhattisgar &amp;<\/p>\n<p>       others) in para 6 and 7 observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;6.   This  Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/344535\/\">M\/s Thobhani Auto Mobiles  vs.<br \/>\n          State  of  Chhattisgarh and Others,<\/a>  while  dealing<br \/>\n          with  the issue of alternative remedy observed that<br \/>\n          &#8220;normally  the High Court should not  interfere  if<br \/>\n          there   is  an  adequate,  efficacious  alternative<br \/>\n          remedy  where hierarchy of appeals is  provided  by<br \/>\n          the  statute,  party  must  exhaust  the  statutory<br \/>\n          remedy   before  resorting  to  writ  jurisdiction,<br \/>\n          except  when  a very strong case is  made  out  for<br \/>\n          making a departure.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>          7.    Applying the well-settled dicta laid down  by<br \/>\n          the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court as well as this Court  on<br \/>\n          the issue of availability of alternative remedy  to<br \/>\n          the  facts  of the case, this petition is dismissed<br \/>\n          as  not  maintainable, as no strong case  has  been<br \/>\n          made    out    for    exercise   of   extraordinary<br \/>\n          discretionary   jurisdiction  in  favour   of   the<br \/>\n          petitioners.  However, liberty is reserved  to  the<br \/>\n          petitioners  to  take recourse to  the  alternative<br \/>\n          statutory forum that may be available to them under<br \/>\n          the  provisions of law. Consequently, interim order<br \/>\n          passed earlier stands vacated.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  12.  In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed as<\/p>\n<p>       not  maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy, in<\/p>\n<p>       accordance with law, if so advised.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition C 4266 of 2009 Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh 2 Collector and Chairman 3 Registrar Public Trust 4 Taran Prakash Sinha 5 Shri Chetan Dandawate [&hellip;]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T14:05:18+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T14:05:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1268,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T14:05:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 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":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T14:05:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T14:05:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009"},"wordCount":1268,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009","name":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T14:05:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dattatraya-mandir-trust-vs-6-shri-yashwant-rao-girepunje-on-11-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Dattatraya Mandir Trust vs 6 Shri Yashwant Rao Girepunje on 11 August, 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\/46039","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=46039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}