IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8155 of 2005 Jay Krishna Dubey, son of Late Kewal Krishna Dubey, resident of Ward No.7, Forbisganj, P.S. Forbisganj, District Araria, Sebait of Sawaliya Kunj Thakurbari, Forbisganj situated at Ward No.7, P.S. Forbisganj, District Araria......................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Araria 2. The Additional Collector, Araria 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Forbisganj, District Araria 4. the Circle Officer, Forbisganj, District Araria 5. Radha Krishna Dubey, Son of Late Kewal Krishna Dubey, resident of Ward No.11, Forbisganj, District Araria 6. Most. Uma Devi, wife of Late Anant Krishna Dubey 7. Sashi Bhushan Dubey 8. Indu Bhushan Dubey 9. Ravi Bhushan Dubey 10. Angad Bhushan Dubey 11. Sashi Kant Dubey 12. Ajay Kant Dubey, all sons of Late Anant Krishna Dubey, resident of Village Karnamepur, P.S. Sahpur, District Bhojpur 13. Sant Kumar Upadhyay, S/o not known to the petitioner, at present A.D.M., Muzaffarpur 14. R.P. Sinha, S/o not known to the petitioner, At present through Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi 15. Gulam Mustafa, S/o Late Abdul Aziz, Resident of Village Masrak, P.S. Masarak, District Saran at present Circle Officer, Amaur, District Purnea................Respondents ----------- 21. 06.07.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The dispute in this case is with regard to the management of the family property gifted to the family deity. It is submitted that as per judgment and decree passed in Title Suit - 2 - No.79 of 1981, which was passed on the basis of the compromise between the brothers, brothers of the family had to manage the property of the deity one year each in rotation. The allegation of the petitioner is that when the management of the deity was handed to other brother, he started disposing of the property of the deity for which he had filed a suit and the court has passed order granting ad- interim injunction against alienation of the property. Meanwhile, petitioner had come into possession and continued in possession on the basis of such interim order. The other brother therefore, moved the Collector, Araria and prayed for putting him in possession in terms of the said compromise decree and orders were passed by the authority and with aid of the administrative machinery, he was put in possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities were not legally empowered to forcibly put the respondents in possession even if continuous possession of the petitioner was in violation of the said compromise decree. Apparently, the dispute is between close relations and family of three brothers, in - 3 - the matter of management of property of the family deity. Therefore, instead of going into issue of right of individual brother to manage the property, this Court directs the Collector, Araria to constitute a Committee for the management of the deity headed by a responsible officer of the Government within two weeks. In the Committee, each brother or their one family member shall also be member. The Committee shall take over the management within two weeks thereafter and shall manage the property and submit quarterly report to the Collector with regard to income and expenditure in respect of the property. The net income from the property shall be deposited under the orders of the Collector in a fixed deposit account in any nationalized bank. This arrangement shall continue till the dispute is settled between the parties by a competent Civil Court. The Committee shall make inventory of the property of the deity at the time of taking over of its management and submit it to the Collector. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)