COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS

                                                                 Reserved

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 7157 of 2026

Committee of Management, Tulsi Smarak Samiti and another
                                                    …..Petitioner(s)

                                 Versus

The State of UP and 4 others
                                                          …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Kamla Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Abhinava    Krishna    Srivastava,
                                     C.S.C.


Court No. - 51

            HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Smt. Kamla Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Sanjiv Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Deepak Chauhan
for the State respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava for the
caveator respondent.

2. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 13.11.2025 passed
by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. C2016000000680, whereby the order
dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Jhansi, concerning Registration No. 226/2001-2002, File No.
J-14320, was set aside in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section
12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
                                    2
                                                  WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

3. Since the controversy has factual overlap with Writ-C No. 45284 of
2025 and Writ-C No. 32493 of 2025, all the three writ petitions were
heard together. However, each writ petition is being decided by a
separate order, having regard to the distinct impugned orders and reliefs
involved therein. The judgment in Writ-C No. 32493 of 2025 has been
pronounced today, whereby the order dated 05.08.2025 cancelling the
registration of the petitioner-Society bearing Registration No. 660 of
1985-86, File No. I-81998, under Section 12-D(1)(c) has been quashed.

4. The petitioner-Society, namely Tulsi Smarak Samiti, Bhagwati Niwas,
Pan Dariba, Lucknow, was originally registered on 19.04.1955 under
Registration No. 23/1955-56, File No. I-6691. In the same year, the State
Government acquired approximately 15.30 acres of land at Rajapur,
District Chitrakoot, for development of the birthplace of Goswami
Tulsidas Ji and handed over the land to the petitioner-Society for its
management and development. The land was thereafter recorded in the
revenue records in the name of the petitioner-Society from 1955
onwards. The said recording has not been shown to have been
successfully displaced in any proceedings brought to the notice of this
Court.

5. Following the amendment relating to renewal of registration, the
Society's registration was renewed for two-year periods commencing
10.10.1977 and 10.10.1979. No renewal was sought in 1981. An
application was subsequently made on 01.01.1984, but by order dated
01.03.1985, the Deputy Registrar informed the Society that its
registration had lapsed and that it had consequently become
unregistered, requiring fresh registration. On a fresh application
submitted by the then Secretary, Sri Manikchand Sharma, the Society
was again registered on 12.06.1985 under Registration No. 660 of 1985-
86, File No. I-81998, in the same name. The earlier Registration No.
23/1955-56, File No. I-6691, was cancelled with reference to the new
registration (Annexure-2 to Writ-C No. 7157 of 2026).
                                     3
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

6. The petitioner-Society thereafter continued to function and its lists of
office-bearers were recognized from time to time. On 10.07.2000, Dr.
Santosh Kumar Mishra, claiming to be its Manager, sought renewal of
the registration. The application was opposed by the then Secretary, Sri
Manikchand Sharma, and the Deputy Registrar, by order dated
15.11.2000, rejected Dr. Mishra's application and renewed the Society's
registration on the application of Sri Manikchand Sharma.

7. Thereafter, on 23.07.2001, Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra caused another
Society to be registered before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Jhansi, in the name Tulsi Smarak Samiti, Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot, bearing Registration No. 226/2001-2002, File No. J-14320.
Dr. Mishra was shown as Vice-President, while the District Magistrate,
Chitrakoot, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mau, District Chitrakoot,
were designated respectively as Ex-Officio Chairman and Ex-Officio
Secretary. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajapur, acting as Ex-Officio
Secretary, thereafter passed orders dated 22.11.2001 and 04.02.2002,
which were challenged by the petitioner-Society in Writ-C No. 11200 of
2002. The writ petition was allowed on 30.05.2016, and the orders
passed by the Deputy District Magistrate were set aside, this Court
holding that the constitution of the Society with Government officers as
its office-bearers was contrary to the U.P. Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1956 and the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

8. In the meantime, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, acting as Ex-
Officio Chairman of the newly constituted Society, submitted a report
seeking cancellation of the registration of the petitioner-Society. Acting
thereon, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 11.12.2014, cancelled the
petitioner's registration dated 12.06.1985 under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the
Act and also cancelled the list of members and office-bearers for 2014-
15. The petitioner-Society challenged the said action in Writ-C No.
68801 of 2014. By judgment dated 30.01.2015, this Court directed that
the impugned order be treated as a show-cause notice and permitted the
petitioners to submit their objections, thereafter the Deputy Registrar
was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
                                     4
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

9. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 09.07.2015, set
aside the earlier cancellation and recognized the list of members and
office-bearers of the petitioner-Society for 2014-15, thereby restoring its
registration. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra challenged the said order before
the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Division, Banda, who by interim order
dated 13.08.2015 admitted the appeal and stayed operation of the order
dated 09.07.2015. The petitioner-Society challenged that interim order in
Writ-C No. 49393 of 2015, and this Court, by interim order dated
03.09.2015, stayed the Commissioner's order and restrained interference
with the functioning of the petitioner-Society. Thereafter, its certificate
of registration continued to be renewed and its lists of members and
office-bearers continued to be recognized.

10. The petitioner-Society subsequently applied before the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi, for cancellation of the
registration of the other Society (respondent no.4) bearing Registration
No. 226/2001-2002, File No. J-14320. By order dated 21.07.2016, the
Assistant Registrar cancelled the said registration under Section 12-D(1)
(b) and (c), holding it to be in contravention of Section 3(2)(a) of the
Act. The said order was challenged by respondent no. 5 by filing an
appeal before respondent no. 2 on 29.07.2016. The Commissioner,
Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, by order dated 13.11.2025, allowed
the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.07.2016 and directed the District
Magistrate to take over management of the property of the petitioner-
Society. The said order is under challenge in the present petition being
Writ-C No. 7157 of 2026.

11. Meanwhile, by order dated 10.08.2017, the Deputy Registrar
changed the registered address of the petitioner-Society from Bhagwati
Niwas, Pan Dariba, Lucknow to 755, Abhishek Eldeco Udhyan-I, Jail
Road, Bungalow Bazar, Lucknow. Its registration was last renewed on
12.06.2020 for five years up to 11.06.2025, while its list of members and
office-bearers continued to be recognized, the last such recognition being
for 2023-24 on 07.03.2024.
                                    5
                                                  WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

12. Elections to the Committee of Management were held on
31.03.2024, and the election papers were forwarded to the Deputy
Registrar on 10.05.2024. As the newly elected committee was not
registered, the petitioners instituted Writ-C No. 39350 of 2024, in which
this Court, by interim order dated 09.01.2025, called for a counter-
affidavit from the State respondents and the matter remained pending.

13. As the renewal of registration became due on 11.06.2025, the
petitioner-Society submitted its renewal application, along with the
requisite fee, on 22.05.2025. During the pendency of the renewal
proceedings, the Deputy Registrar, by letter dated 15.07.2025, called for
a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajapur, who submitted his
report on 26.07.2025. Relying upon the said report, the Deputy
Registrar, by order dated 05.08.2025, cancelled the petitioner's
registration under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act. The said order was
under challenge in Writ-C No. 32493 of 2025.

14. During the pendency of the controversy concerning the registration
of the Society, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, by order dated
25.07.2025, directed that the property relating to the petitioner-Society
be vested in another governmental body. The said order has been
challenged in Writ-C No. 45284 of 2025.

15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order
dated 13.11.2025 is unsustainable as the Commissioner, while exercising
appellate jurisdiction under Section 12-D(2) of the Act, has travelled
beyond the controversy arising from the order dated 21.07.2016. It is
submitted that the Assistant Registrar had cancelled the registration of
the subsequently registered Society bearing Registration No. 226/2001-
2002, inter alia, on the ground that its registration was contrary to
Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, whereas the Commissioner, while setting
aside the said order, has proceeded to direct the District Magistrate to
take over management of the Rajapur property.

16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
Commissioner failed to give due effect to the judgment dated 30.05.2016
                                    6
                                                   WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 11200 of 2002, whereby the orders
passed by the authorities in connection with the Society constituted with
Government officers as office-bearers were set aside. It is submitted that
the Chief Secretary, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and subsequent
proceedings before this Court, issued the circular dated 14.11.2024
directing Government officials not to interfere in the management of
private societies contrary to the applicable service rules. According to
the petitioners, the impugned order overlooks both the aforesaid
judgment and circular.

17. It is also submitted that the Commissioner has proceeded on the
assumption that the Rajapur land is Government property and has
consequently directed its management by the District Magistrate,
although the petitioners rely upon the revenue records showing the name
of the Society from 1955 onwards. It is argued that the question of title
or proprietary rights over the property could not have been finally
determined in an appeal confined to the legality of cancellation of
registration.

18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State respondents, on the
other hand, submits that the primary dispute concerns approximately
15.30 acres of land at Rajapur, which, according to the State, was
acquired in the year 1955 for development of the birthplace of Goswami
Tulsidas Ji and was entrusted to the original committee constituted for
that purpose. It is submitted that the original committee subsequently
ceased to function and that, after creation of District Chitrakoot, the
District Magistrate constituted a committee for protection, maintenance
and development of the property, which was registered on 23.07.2001.

19. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner-Society is
a subsequent registration and has no lawful connection with the original
committee or the property in question. Reliance is placed upon the stand
taken in the counter-affidavit that the registration bearing File No.
I-81998 was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and that the
registration has already been cancelled by order dated 05.08.2025. It is
                                     7
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

also submitted that substantial development activities have been
undertaken at the Rajapur site through the governmental machinery and
that the property is required to be protected and maintained in public
interest.

20. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State respondents also
submits that the petitioner cannot claim any proprietary right merely on
the basis of registration under the Societies Registration Act and that the
Commissioner was justified in considering the historical and
governmental records concerning the Rajapur property.

21. Learned Counsel for the caveator respondent supports the impugned
appellate order and submits that the Commissioner, upon consideration
of the material on record, was justified in setting aside the order dated
21.07.2016 and in issuing consequential directions concerning
management of the property.

22. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on
record, the principal question which arises for consideration is whether
the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section
12-D(2) of the Act in relation to the order dated 21.07.2016, was
justified in setting aside the cancellation of Registration No. 226/2001-
2002 and, consequentially, directing the District Magistrate to take over
management of the Rajapur property.

23. The order dated 21.07.2016 was concerned with the registration of
the Society bearing Registration No. 226/2001-2002. The Assistant
Registrar, while passing the said order, recorded that registration of two
societies with an identical name was impermissible in view of Section
3(2)(a) of the Act and further proceeded on the basis that the subsequent
registration had been obtained by suppressing the existence of the earlier
Society. On that basis, the Assistant Registrar cancelled the registration
of the Society bearing Registration No. 226/2001-2002 under Section
12-D(1)(b) and (c). The said order was challenged in appeal under
Section 12-D(2) of the Act.
                                    8
                                                   WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

24. The first question, therefore, is whether the conclusion reached by
the Assistant Registrar that the subsequent registration was hit by the
statutory prohibition contained in Section 3(2)(a) of the Act and was
liable to be cancelled under Section 12-D could be said to be legally
unsustainable. The material on record shows that the petitioner-Society
had been registered earlier in the year 1955 and, after the lapse of its
registration, was again registered on 12.06.1985 under Registration No.
660 of 1985-86 in the same name. Thereafter, on 23.07.2001, another
Society came to be registered in the name “Tulsi Smarak Samiti,
Rajapur, District Chitrakoot” under Registration No. 226/2001-2002,
File No. J-14320. The subsequent registration was thus made in
circumstances in which the existence of the earlier Society and its
registration could not be treated as wholly unrelated or remote
circumstances.

25. The chronology preceding the subsequent registration is also
relevant. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra had, on 10.07.2000, sought renewal
of the registration of the petitioner-Society, which application was
opposed by its then Secretary, Sri Manikchand Sharma, and was rejected
by the Deputy Registrar on 15.11.2000, while renewal was granted on
the application of Sri Manikchand Sharma. Within the following year,
another Society bearing the name Tulsi Smarak Samiti, Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot, came to be registered on 23.07.2001, with Dr. Santosh
Kumar Mishra as Vice-President and Government officers as Ex-Officio
Chairman and Secretary. These circumstances lend support to the finding
recorded by the Assistant Registrar that the subsequent registration could
not be viewed independently of the earlier registered Society.

26. Section 3(2)(a) of the Act places a statutory restriction upon
registration of a Society in circumstances where the proposed name is
impermissible by reason of its identity or similarity with the name of an
already registered Society. The Assistant Registrar applied the said
statutory provision to the facts before him and came to the conclusion
that the subsequent registration bearing No. 226/2001-2002 could not
lawfully be sustained. The material placed before this Court does not
                                     9
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

disclose any such error in the factual foundation of that conclusion as
would justify holding that the Assistant Registrar acted without
jurisdiction or on a wholly irrelevant consideration.

27. The further finding of the Assistant Registrar regarding suppression
of the existence of the earlier Society also cannot be said, on the material
placed before this Court, to be without any basis. The circumstances
noticed hereinabove demonstrate that the subsequent registration was
brought about notwithstanding the existence and continuing history of
the earlier Society. The finding of suppression was a finding recorded by
the statutory authority upon consideration of the material before it. No
material has been shown which would justify this Court, in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in holding that the
said finding was perverse or so unsupported by the record as to warrant
its being set aside.

28. It is, therefore, not a case where the Assistant Registrar cancelled the
subsequent registration merely because a dispute existed between two
groups claiming the same property. The order dated 21.07.2016
proceeded upon the statutory question concerning the validity of the
subsequent registration itself, namely, whether the subsequent Society
could lawfully have been registered in the circumstances attracting
Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, coupled with the finding regarding
suppression of the earlier registration. Those were matters directly
falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar under
Section 12-D.

29. The Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under
Section 12-D(2), was required to examine whether the conclusions
reached by the Assistant Registrar on those statutory issues were
sustainable. Instead, while setting aside the order dated 21.07.2016, the
Commissioner has proceeded substantially on the premise that the
Rajapur property was acquired by the State Government in the year 1955
and that its management should consequently remain with the State
authorities. The said consideration, by itself, does not displace the
                                    10
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

statutory basis on which the Assistant Registrar had cancelled
Registration No. 226/2001-2002.

30. The legality of the subsequent registration under Section 3(2)(a) is a
question distinct from the ultimate title to or ownership of the Rajapur
property. The existence of a claim by the State in respect of the property,
or the fact that the property may have been acquired for a public
purpose, cannot by itself validate a registration which is otherwise
prohibited by the Act. Equally, the registration of a Society under the Act
does not, by itself, confer title to property. The Commissioner, therefore,
fell into error in treating the question concerning the property as the
principal basis for reversing the statutory conclusion reached by the
Assistant Registrar concerning Registration No. 226/2001-2002.

31. The judgment dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.
11200 of 2002 also does not justify the Commissioner's conclusion. The
said judgment dealt with the participation of Government officials in the
management of the concerned private Society and set aside the orders
passed in that context. The said judgment may have a bearing upon the
manner in which Government officials could participate in the affairs of
a private Society, but it did not adjudicate the legality of Registration
No. 226/2001-2002 under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act. Nor did it
determine the title to or ownership of the Rajapur property. The
Commissioner could not, therefore, rely upon the property dispute or the
governmental character attributed to the property as a substitute for
examination of the statutory basis of the Assistant Registrar's order.

32. The direction issued by the Commissioner requiring the District
Magistrate to take over management of the Rajapur property suffers
from an additional and independent infirmity. The appeal before the
Commissioner arose out of the order dated 21.07.2016 concerning the
cancellation of Registration No. 226/2001-2002. The appellate
jurisdiction under Section 12-D(2) could not, without an independent
statutory foundation, be converted into a proceeding for adjudication of
title to or management of the property. No such independent statutory
                                    11
                                                    WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

basis has been disclosed in the impugned appellate order. The direction
concerning management of the property was thus beyond the
controversy which the Commissioner was required to adjudicate in the
statutory appeal.

33. The position is further affected by the judgment pronounced today in
Writ-C No. 32493 of 2025. The order dated 05.08.2025 cancelling the
registration of the petitioner-Society bearing Registration No. 660 of
1985-86, File No. I-81998, has been quashed. The said judgment,
however, does not operate as an automatic renewal or extension of the
registration beyond 11.06.2025 and leaves the renewal application dated
22.05.2025 to be considered by the competent authority in accordance
with law. Consequently, the cancellation order dated 05.08.2025 no
longer survives, though the question of renewal after 11.06.2025 remains
open. The subsequent quashing of that order also means that it cannot
furnish an independent basis for sustaining the Commissioner's
conclusion in the present proceedings.

34. On an overall consideration of the material, this Court finds that the
conclusion reached by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated
21.07.2016 regarding the illegality of the subsequent registration bearing
No. 226/2001-2002 cannot be said to suffer from such legal infirmity as
would warrant its interference. The Assistant Registrar considered the
existence of the earlier registered Society, the subsequent registration in
the same or substantially identical name, the circumstances in which the
subsequent registration was obtained and the allegation of suppression of
the earlier registration. The statutory conclusion reached thereon under
Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 12-D is not shown to be perverse,
without jurisdiction or based upon irrelevant considerations.

35. The Commissioner, while setting aside the said order, has not
demonstrated any legal error in the statutory conclusion reached by the
Assistant Registrar. Instead, the appellate order proceeds principally
upon the character of the Rajapur property and the perceived need for its
management by the State authorities. Those considerations could not
                                     12
                                                     WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

furnish a lawful basis for setting aside the order dated 21.07.2016,
particularly   when    the   Commissioner     was    exercising   appellate
jurisdiction in a matter concerning the validity of Registration No.
226/2001-2002. The impugned appellate order, therefore, cannot be
sustained.

36. The Commissioner's further direction requiring the District
Magistrate to take over management of the Rajapur property is also
unsustainable. The question of title, ownership, possession or other
substantive civil rights in respect of the property has not been finally
adjudicated in the present proceedings. The fact that the property is
connected with a place of public or cultural importance, or that the State
may assert an independent right therein, does not confer upon the
Commissioner an appellate power under Section 12-D(2) to determine or
transfer its management in the manner directed by the impugned order.

37. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that the order dated
21.07.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar does not warrant
interference, whereas the appellate order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the
Commissioner is legally unsustainable both because it fails to disclose a
valid basis for reversing the statutory conclusion reached by the
Assistant Registrar and because it travels beyond the controversy arising
in the statutory appeal by directing the District Magistrate to take over
management of the Rajapur property.

38. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

39. The order dated 13.11.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, the
Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, in Appeal No.
C2016000000680, arising out of the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by
the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi, is hereby
quashed.

40. Consequently, the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi, cancelling the registration
of the Society bearing Registration No. 226/2001-2002, File No.
J-14320, shall stand restored.
                                                                 13
                                                                               WRIC No. - 7157 of 2026

                            41. The consequential direction contained in the order dated 13.11.2025
                            requiring the District Magistrate to take over management of the Rajapur
                            property shall also stand quashed.

                            42. It is clarified that the restoration of the order dated 21.07.2016 is
                            confined to the statutory consequences flowing from the cancellation of
                            Registration No. 226/2001-2002. This judgment shall not be construed
                            as an adjudication upon the title, ownership, possession or any other
                            substantive civil right in respect of the Rajapur property. Any party
                            claiming an independent right in the property shall remain at liberty to
                            pursue the appropriate civil or statutory remedy available in law.

                            43. No order as to costs.


                                                                                      (Arun Kumar,J.)

                            September 30, 2026
                            Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad