IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13250 of 2008 Dharamnath Giri, Chela of late Sheodhari Giri, resident of Village – Madarpur Hilalpur, Sheo Parwati Math, P O – Hilalpur, P S – Ganga Bridge, Dist – Vaishali - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna – 1 through its Administrator –cum- Chief Executive Officer 3 The Administrator –cum- Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna – 1 4 The Subdivisional Officer, Hajipur, District – Vaishali 5 Professor Vivekanand Shukla, son of Jamun Shukla No 5 is resident of Village and Post Office – Vishnupur Titra, Police Station – Rajapakar, District – Vaishali 6 Mukhiya Hilalpur Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti, Village – Hilalpur, P O – Hilalpur, Police Station – Industrial Area, District – Vaishali 7 Chandrama Prasad Singh, son of Madan Prasad Singh, No 7 is resident of village and P O – Hilalpur, Police Station – Industrial Area, District – Vaishali 8 Rajni Prasad Sinha @ Rajni Ranjan Sinha, son of late Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha, No 8 is resident of Village & P O – Hilalpur, P S – Industrial Area, Dist – Vaishali 9 Dinkar Prasad Shukla, son of Chandrika Prasad Shukla No 9 is resident of Village & P O – Bishnupur Titra, P S – Rajapakar, District – Vaishali 10 Shri Ram Deni Rai, son of late Budhu Rai No 10 is resident of Village – Madarpur, P O – Hilalpur, P S – Ganga Bridge, District – Vaishali 11 Bimal Prasad Singh, son of Basuli Singh No 11 is resident of Village & P O – Sahdullapur, P S – Ganga Bridge, District – Vaishali 12 Nagendra Sah, son of Churaman Sah, No 12 is resident of Village – Chakiari, P O – Bishnupur Titra, P S – Rajapakar, Dist – Vaishali 13 Suri Ram, son of late Jamun Ram, No 13 is resident of Village and P O – Bishnupur Titra, P S – Rajapakar, Distrrict – Vaishali 14 Din Bandhu Singh, son of Ram Niwaje Singh, No 14 is resident of Village & P O – Hilalpur, P S – Industrial Area, Dist – Vaishali - Respondents ----------- 6 26.03.2010 Petitioner claims to be owing and possessing certain land. He is a Brahmin and those properties have been treated by the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board to be properties of a Religious Trust and not of the petitioner in personal capacity. Petitioner was removed as Trustee as far back as in 1993. Subsequently, different schemes were framed for proper 2 management of the Trust. In my view, firstly, this issue whether the Religious Trust Board rightly declared it to be a Religious Trust or not cannot now be raised after more than a decade. If petitioner has any grievance, he can make a representation to the Religious Trust Board which would decide the matter in accordance with law. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the properties, which are sought to be taken over, are his personal properties and not the properties of the Math/Religious Trust. In respect of this, Section 43B of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 clearly invests the Tribunal constituted thereunder with special jurisdiction to decide these issues specifically. In that view of the matter, petitioner would be at liberty to move the said Tribunal by filing an application which would ascertain the nature of the holding in question. If such an application is filed before the Tribunal within a period of one month from today, subject to cooperation from the petitioner, the Tribunal would decide the matter in accordance with law at the earliest not later than six months from the date when application is so filed. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)