Mohan Raj Vs. the Assistant Commissioner

rajasthan public tracts act - powers of asst commissioner of devasthan and civil procedure code--cons traction--stay of asst, commissioner of devasthan is not empowered to stay construction--held, order is without jurisdiction & cannot be sustained.;the impugned orders for staying the construction, which was being under taken by the petitioner are patently without, jurisdiction. under the provisions of the rajasthan public trust act, the assistant devasthan commissioner is not empowered to pass any such orders. the dispute essentially is in the nature of a civil dispute, about the title and possession of immovable property. such a dispute can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court.;writ accepted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....land. the non-petitioner no. 1 on this application passed an order for maintenance of status quo on the said plot and serving notice on the petitioner. the petitioner contested the right of the non-petitioner no. 1 to pass any order and also the factual allegations but all the objections of the petitioner were rejected by non-petitioner no. 1 and the ad-interim stay order dated 11 1-74 was extended and allowed to continue by order 1-2-74.2. the petitioner has sled this writ application praying that the orders of non-petitioner no. 1 dated 11-1-74 and 1-2-74 and notice dated 11-1 74 should be quashed as they were patently without jurisdiction.3 mr. parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assistant commissioner of devasthan, whose powers were being exercised by sdo had no jurisdiction in any law either the rajasthan public trust act or otherwise, to take cognizance of this dispute, which was purely of a civil nature and either adjudicate or to pass a stay order. it was submitted that the impugned orders were patently without jurisdiction, and without any authority under any law.4. mr. v.n. modi, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 fairly and frankly submitted that though he has tried to study the entire scheme and provisions of the rajasthan public trust act. it is not possible to point out an such provision where any authority or power has been given to the assistant devasthan commissioner to pass said orders.5. i have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. it appears that the impugned orders for staying the construction. which was being under taken by the petitioner are patently without jurisdiction under the provisions of the rajasthan public trusts act, the assistant devasthan commissioner is not empowered to pass any such orders. the dispute essentially is in the nature of a civil dispute, about the title and possession of immovable property. such a dispute can only be adjudicated by a competent civil.....