IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10682 of 2005 1. RAM,LAXMAN,JANKI JI,HANUMAN JI ,SAMADHI JI SHANKARJI, DEITIES CONSECRATED,ESTABLISHED IN TEMPLE AT VILL-TAJPUR, ANCHAL-MORBA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR 2. RAM, LAXMAN, JANKI JI. HANUMAN JI. SHANKAR JI, SHITAL DEVI, RANI SATI JI, DEITIES CONSECRATED ESTABLISHED IN TEMPLE AT MOHALLA-SHAMSHERGANJ, TOWN AND DIST. DARBHANGA 3. RAM,LAXMAN,JANKI JI,HANUMAN JI DEITIES CONSECRATED ESTABLISHED IN TEMPLE AT VILL. HISAR, ANCHAL HARLAKHI, DIST. MADHUBANI 4. RADHA KRISHNA, NARSINGHA BHAGWAN, DEITIES CONSECRATED ESTABLISHED IN TEMPLE AT VILLAGE KANSHI MANIHAR, ANCHAL DARBHANGA, DIST. DARBHANGA. 5. RAM,LAXMAN,JANKI JI,HANUMAN JI, RADHA KRISHNA JI, SAMADHI JI, DEITIES CONSECRATED, ESTABLISHED IN TEMPLE AT VILLAGE RAMPURA, ANCHAL-SINGHWARA, DIST. DARBHANGA ALL (1 TO 5) ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH SHEBAIT MAHANTH GULAB DAS 6. MAHANTH GULAB DAS, CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH BISHESHWAR DAS, R/O ASTHAN RAMPURA, ANCHAL SINGHWARA , DIST DARBHANGA -- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA 3. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA 4. THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, A.C. to G.P.22 ----------- 04 15.04.2011 Heard the parties. In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 05 deities together with shebait of those deities have approached this Court raising a grievance with respect to the revisional order dated 12.11.2003, passed by respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in revision case no. 128 of 2002 (Annexure-5). 2 Prefatorial facts are as under:- A ceiling proceeding was initiated vide L.C. case no. 206 of 1974 against Mahanth Bisheshwar Das ( since deceased) who has been substituted by his chela, namely Mahanth Gulab Das ( petitioner no.6) wherein, on a consideration of the materials on record, one ceiling unit was granted to the said Mahanth besides exemption of 05 acres of land for puja and rag-bhog. Aggrieved by the said adjudication the landholder preferred appeal which was dismissed. A revision application thereagainst also stood rejected. The original landholder, namely, late Mahanth Bisheshwar Das together with the deities filed a writ proceeding before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1650 of 1980. Said matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court and by a proceeding dated 01.12.1983, the same was allowed. All the orders passed by the ceiling authorities were quashed and set aside. The matter was directed to be taken up afresh from the stage of Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 ( for short „the Act‟). In the light of the aforesaid order, the proceeding was taken up afresh in which notices were issued whereafter the writ petitioners appeared and filed objection(s) which were considered, and the Additional Collector, by order dated 16.01.1988/20.01.1988 (Annexure-3), found and held that the deities did not hold land independently and were owned and managed by one shebait/trust being the landholder, and accordingly the landholder was entitled to only 01 units. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners/deities 3 including the shebait (petitioner no.6) preferred appeal before the respondent Collector which gave rise to appeal no. 08 of 1987-88. On a consideration of the documents produced in support of the claim raised on behalf of the deities, it was found that the chela of the original landholder, namely, Mahanth Gulab Das was raiyat in respect of the entire land covered by the said ceiling proceeding. Having found no independent existence of the deities, the appellate authority concurred with the findings recorded by the respondent Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal by order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure-4). Aggrieved over the said order the petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue being Board Revision (Surplus) case no. 128 of 2002. The revisional Court considered in extenso the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the State in the light of documents placed on record. It appears that the writ petitioners made submissions, primarily, relating to grant of separate ceiling unit to all the five deities. Various Revenue records including the reports submitted by different Circle Officers of different Mouzas relating to the status of the land in relation to the deities situated within the said Mouzas/Anchals reflected that all the Revenue records relating to deities located in different Mouzas excepting one declared the landholder as the owner of the land. So far as petitioner/deity 108 Ram Laxman Janki Ji Maharaj (petitioner no.5) is concerned, it was found that separate jamabandi in the name of the said deity, was created. The revisional Court also considered the report of the Deputy Collector who was earlier assigned to make enquires 4 including local inspection and submit report which was furnished on 24.03.1976, and was part of the record. The sanads respecting the deities were also placed before it and considered by the revisional Court. A Tamilaknama/ mahanthinama scribed in English was also produced on behalf of the petitioners from where it was found that the donee was to be treated as owner of the property/land and was to carry out all religious ceremonies. After having considered the claim of the writ petitioners based on documents on record the revisional Court concluded as under in para -8:- “8- iwoZxkeh df.Mdkvksa esa ewy gncanh okn esa la/kkfjr dkxtkr vkSj izfrosnuksa ij vk/kkfjr rF;ksa dh mfYyf[kr leh{kk ds eze esa eS fuEukafdr rF;ksa dks bl izdj.k esa LFkkfir ikrk gw¡ %& ¼d½ eagFk fo'ks'oj nkl gh izfrosfnr vf/kdka'k Hkwfe ds tekcanh /kkjd gSa] u fd mDr 5 eafnjksa ds nsoh&nsorkx.kA vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu eagFk dks jS;r Hkw/kkjh Lohdkj djuk gksxkA ¼[k½ ek= “Jh 108 jke tkudh th egkjkt] LFkku jkeiqjkÞ ds uke mfYyf[kr dqN tekcafn;ka gSa ftudk dqy jdok yxHkx 5 ch?kk gS vkSj ftlds lsoSr ds :i esa eagFk fo'ks'oj nkl ntZ gSA bl izdkj Jh jketkudh th egkjkt dh i`Fkd jS;rh Hkw/kkjh fLFkfr vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds v/ku ekU; gksxhA ¼x½ vU; lHkh eafnjksa dh jS;rh Hkw/kkjh&fLFkfr drbZ vuqekU; ugha gS D;ksafd muds eafnjksa ds vUrxZr vyx&vyx u rks dHkh dksbZ tekcafn;ka jgh gS vkSj u gSa vkSj u gh eagFk t;dj.k nkl vFkok eagFk fo'ks'oj nkl n~okjk dHkh Hkh i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls vFkok lesfdr :i ls dksbZ Hkw&lEifRr dk muds uke viZ.kukek@mRlxZ@ladYi fd;k x;k] vU;Fkk Hkh] vfyf[kr :i esa gh] ,sls iz;kstukFkZ fdlh d`r vuq"Bku dk vH;kosndksa n~okjk 5 dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSa” Accordingly the revisional Court/authority allowed one additional unit to the landholder/petitioner no.5 who was found a separate raiyat/landholder having valid documents of title and possession. The claim of separate unit for petitioner nos. 1 to 4 was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional Court has committed error in not granting separate unit to the deities/petitioner nos. 1 to 4, in view of the well established legal position that a deity under Hindu faith is a legal entity capable of holding land. It is contended that documents placed before the Courts below including sanads (documents of donations) indicate that the deities are separate and distinct. It is also submitted that although one trust holds the entire lands but the management of each deity is separate. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that deities are at different places/Moujas. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that they are being managed by one shebait who is the original landholder. It is contended that from the documents of title and possession, placed before the authority, it has been found that all the lands are held in the name of Mahanth/original landholder except those relating to petitioner no.5, namely, Ram Laxman Janki Ji. Referring to the revisional order as well as averments made in the Counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Bihar State Religious Trust Board has found 6 that the all the temples/deities are being managed by petitioner nos. 6, namely Mahanth Gulab Das being chela of late Mahanth Bisheshwar Das ( original landholder). From the materials on record including the findings recorded by the revisional Court, it appears that the lands in question excepting those relating to petitioner no.5 continued to be recorded in the name of the Mahanth. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deities held the land independently in their own names and the donor or creator of the deities divested himself or themselves of all the rights, interest and title in respect of the lands so donated. Having heard the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that petitioners have failed to make out a case for invocation of writ jurisdiction for setting aside the findings based on appraisal of facts recorded by the revisional Court in the order impugned. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)