IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.908 of 2010 1. BABU NAND JHA S/O LATE JIWACHH JHA 2. KALIKA NAND MISHRA 3. NITYANAND MISHRA 4. AMLESH MISHRA 5. SHANKAR MISHRA SONS OF YASHODAR MISHRA 6. BAIJU MISHRA S/O LATE VIDYANANAND MISHRA ALL R/O SRI 108 SHYAMAJEE (KALIJEE) CAMPUS, MOHALLA- SIKANDARPUR, P.S.- TOWN, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. ……. (OPPOSITE PARTIES)/ APPELLANTS Versus 1. NAV DURGA KALI MANDIR NEYAS SAMITI, CONSTITUTED BY BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS PATNA, SITUATED AT MOHALLA- SIKANDARPUR WITHIN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR POLICE STATION- TOWN, POST OFFICE AND DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH SRI UMA SHANKAR PANDEY, S/O LATE SAHDEV PRASAD PANDEY, TREASURER OF NAV DURGA KALI MANDIR NEYAS SAMITI, R/O MOHALLA SIKANDARPUR WITHIN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- TOWN, POST OFFICE AND DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 2. SRI RAKESH KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHYAM SUNDER MISHRA, SECRETARY, NAV DURGA KALI MANDIR NEYAS SAMITI, R/O MOHALLA- NAI BAZAR WITHIN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- TOWN, POST OFFICE AND DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ………….. (APPLICANTS)/RESPONDENTS ----------- 7. 04.03.2011 Heard the parties. The appellants are aggrieved with the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. 5 of 2009, by which the petition filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the maintainability of the case has been rejected by the Tribunal. Admitted position is that one Nav Durga Kali Mandir was declared as a public trust on 11.5.2002 in which, it was further added that for the protection of the trust property a Board would be constituted specifying the members, in the notification. Unfortunately in the said notification the exact area or the details of the trust property was not given. This led to a the confusion on account of which the Appellant filed a Title Suit numbered as 37 of 2004 for declaration of title over the suit land which had been allegedly encroached by the Trust after the Notification. However, the Munsif in seisin of the Title Suit transferred the case to the Tribunal holding that it was not maintainable before the court. The Tribunal similarly returned the case to the Munsif, stating that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Then the case went before the District Judge, where it is now pending for adjudication. The application was rejected by the court below on the ground that under Section 28 (2) (u) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust, Act unless the decision of the board is not set aside by a Competent Court, no objection could be raised by the Appellant in this regard. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that unfortunately for the reason that the Respondents here are not cooperating in the disposal of the Title Suit numbered as 37 of 2004, there has been no declaration by the Competent Court nor is it possible. In such a situation, the Respondents should not get undue advantage in the present proceeding under Section 43 (d) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust, Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submits that it is only when there has been a declaration by a Competent Court and the decision of the Board is overruled that the Appellant here can raise an objection and till then the order of the Board shall remain in force. He further contends that he has not delayed the disposal of Title Suit numbered as 37 of 2004, which has been delayed for its own reasons. In the impugned order, I find that the court had fixed the case on 31.8.2010 for final hearing on suggested issues by both the parties. Pursuant to the same this court is informed that issues have been filed. In my view, in the interest of justice, the court below will firstly ascertain from both the parties, the exact details of the lands declared by the Board and on being satisfied on this preliminary issue proceed with the matter. Further direction is given to the District Judge, Muzaffarpur to conclude the proceedings of Title Suit no. 37 of 2004 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties present before this court do not dispute that there should be an expeditious disposal of the Suit in the facts of the case, so that there is no further aggravation of dispute with regard to a religious edifice. In view of such submission, they also undertake not to take unnecessary adjournment in the Suit will cooperate to ensure disposal of the Suit within the time fixed by this court. With these observations, the application is disposed off. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )