IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10198 of 2011 Rajeev Kumar Pathak, Son of Late Sheo Kumar Pathak @ Ramjee Sharan, Resident of Ramlila Mathia, P.S. - Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran at Chapra. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna through its Secretary. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna. 3. The Administrator, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Patna. 4. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chapra Sadar, District – Saran. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhanendra Nath Choubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyay, AC to GP 10 For Intervenor : Mr. Ashok Kr. Mishra, Advocate. For Resp. 1 and 2. : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 4/ 22.11.2011 Counsel for the State Religious Trust Board has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. The petitioner submits that one Mahanth Awadh Bihari Saran Das, who was living in Mohalla Dahiaman, Town Chapra about a century ago. The petitioner submits that the Mutt (Mathia) in question is a private acquisition through registered deed of gift of late Mahanth Ram Dhyan Das. The petitioner being the disciple inherited the same. The petitioner submits that the Mathia was never proclaimed as Public Math by Public Religious Trust Board. The petitioner submits that erstwhile Mahanth filed T.S. No. 169 of 1963 for evicting one Devendra Nath Tripathi from the premises. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board filed application for being added as a party, which was rejected both by the trial court as well as by the High Court in revision. On this basis, the petitioner submits that the Bihar State Religious Trust Board has no locus to interfere with the Trust, which is only in private domain. The petitioner submits that at no point of time, the 2 Religious Trust Board proclaimed the Muth as Public Religious Trust. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for Bihar State Religious Trust Board, on the other hand submits that the property has been registered as a Public Religious Trust in the record of the Board. He submits that the petitioner should first take these objections before the Sub-Divisional Officer itself. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that petitioner may take all his points before this Court before the Sub- Divisional Officer first, who would decide the issue without prejudice that the petitioner moved this Court. It will be open for the petitioner to produce all the documents to show that the acquisition is a private acquisition and the Religious Board has no right to interfere with its functioning. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)