IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12719 of 2005 RAM SUJAS DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS *** For the petitioner : M/s Shyam Sundar Sinha “Shyam”, Sunil Kumar Jha & Pramod Kumar, Advocates For the respondents : Ms Kumari Amrita, S C I (Ceiling) *** 5 04.07.2008 The petitioner is aggrieved by the revisional order passed in Board Revision Case No 4 of 1989 by which the revision filed by the petitioner being Mahanth/Shebait was dismissed and the order of the Collector, Munger (Now Lakhisarai) passed in Ceiling Case No 15 of 1975-76 dated 17.07.1988 has been affirmed. The primal dispute in the case is whether the entitlement of one unit under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act as done by the Collector and affirmed by the Board of Revenue is correct or not. On behalf of petitioner, it is stated that a reference to the enquiry report of the Subdivisional Officer, Lakhisarai dated 03.07.1985 made pursuant to the orders of the DCLR clearly notices that there are four temples, one in Lakhisarai and three separate temples in Barhaiya. Mahanth Ram Charitar Das allegedly was the Shebait who later appointed three Shebaits for the three other temples. Thus, there were four Shebaits of the four temples. One of them was registered with the Hindu Religious 2 Trust Board prior to 09.09.1970. The other three were registered subsequently in the year 1975. Petitioner submits that the said report clearly admits that there are four distinct temples having their own deities. Petitioner’s submission is short and precise. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Laksahmi Narayan and others -Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in AIR 1978 Patna 330, the temples being separate and distinct, there are four separate deities and if there are four separate deities then each deity is entitled to one unit. Even if they are under the management of one Shebait/Mahanth that makes no difference as the Shebait or the Mahanth is only administrator for the deities and the endowments are two deities who are individuals in their own respect. This factual and legal issue, all authorities have failed to notice which has led even the Board of Revenue to comment error of law. Having examined the order, perused the orders of the authorities and having heard the learned counsel for the State who has fairly submitted that authorities were required to examine the matter factually in light of the above legal position, I am afraid that the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The orders of the Collector and the Board of Revenue are, thus, set aside. I direct Collector, Lakhisarai to get the matter reexamined in view of the legal provision above noticed and decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties. The parties would be obliged to furnish details with copies of the endowment 3 and land acquisition and transfer from which they would have to establish that endowments were two different deities at different places and then land held by each deity through its Shebait or Mahanth would be calculated and the ceiling law accordingly apply. It is expected that the entire exercise would be conducted by the Collector, Lakhisarai expeditiously as the matter has already lingered for over thirty years at different stages. All effective steps should be taken to conclude these proceedings within a period of six months from today and the parties are directed to fully cooperate in the matter. The writ application, with direction and observation aforesaid, is allowed. M.E.H./ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh )