CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.315 OF 1993 ***** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ***** 1. MAHANTH AJITESHWAR DAS, Chela of late Mahanth Fulena Das, resident of Asthal Azarkaba Rasalpur, Baghla, Police Station- Bakmehsi, District- Samastipur. 2. Sri Ram Janki Asthal Srinath Paran, P.S. Chakmehsi, District Samastipur. 3. Sri Ram Janki Asthal, Azarkare Rasalpur Baghla at Rasalpur Baghla, P.S. Bakmehsi, District- Samastipur. 4. Sri Ram Janki Rampur Kalyan Asthal at Rampur, P.S. Basuara, District- Darbhanga. ....... Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Collector, Samastipur. 4. Additional Collector, Samastipur. 5. Ramanand Lal, son of Sampat Lal. 6. Ram Lochan Mahto, son of Ramrum Mahto. 7. Krishna Kumar Pandey, son of Kedar Pandey. 8. Ramdayal Mahto, son of Hitlal Mahto. 9. Shiv Kumar Pandey, son of late Chandrama Pandey. Respondents 5 to 9 are resident of village Azarikabe Rasalpur, Baghla, Police Station- Chakmehsi, District Samastipur. 10. Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board, Bihar, Patna. ....... Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. R.C. Thakur & Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocates. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ***** S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.1992 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Member, Board 2 of Revenue, Bihar, in Samastipur Revision Case No.70 of 1990 (Mahanth Fulena Das Vs. State of Bihar and others), in purported exercise of powers under section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been rejected. The petitioners have been allowed only one unit; prayer for more unit(s) has been rejected, and the further prayer to declare 7.12 acres, donated for Government institutions, as surplus land has also been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Notices under the Act were served on Mahanth Fulena Das to enable him to file his returns under the Act. He submitted his returns and the matter was finally disposed of by the authorities under the Act leading to two writ petitions in this Court, namely, C.W.J.C. No.2809 of 1980 (Mahanth Fulena Das and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others), and C.W.J.C. No.3215 of 1980 (Sheo Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar and others). C.W.J.C. No.2809 of 1980 was at the instance of the land-holder, whereas C.W.J.C. No.3215 of 1980 was at the instance of a Bataidar. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgment dated 1.4.1985, whereby the writ petitions were allowed, the entire proceedings under the Act were held to have been wiped off on account of legislative 3 intervention, and the learned Additional Collector, being the first authority, was directed to conduct the enquiry afresh in terms of Section 10 of the Act. 3. The learned Additional Collector thereafter disposed of the returns submitted by the present petitioners by his order dated 22.5.1987 (Annexure-1), whereby he recorded the following findings of facts: (i) The land-holder had claimed one unit for himself, and three units for the deities. The learned Additional Collector allowed only one unit to the land-holder. (ii) The land-holder‟s further case was that he had donated a total area of 17 (seventeen) acres to the State Government to set up a Government College and a Government Hospital. The land-holder had, therefore, prayed that the total area so donated should be beyond the unit(s) allowed to him. The contention was accepted in part. In other words, an area of 9.88 acres was declared to be surplus lands, and the balance of 7.12 acres was included within the single unit allowed to the land-holder. (iii) The learned Additional Collector held that the classification of lands as per the report of the learned Anchal Adhikari was correct and the objection of land-holder in this regard was rejected. 4 4. The matter was taken in appeal which was dismissed by order dated 1.8.1990 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Samastipur in Land Ceiling Case No.207/209 of 1987-88 (Mahanth Fulena Das Vs. The State of Bihar and others). The findings of facts recorded by the learned Additional Collector, the first authority, were upheld. The petitioners‟ revision application was also rejected by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order, and the findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below were affirmed. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the land-holders. 5. We may point out that Mahanth Fulena Das died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue and has been substituted by the present petitioners before us. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a grievance that complete rejection of the units claimed for and on behalf of the deities is unjust, unreasonable and harsh. We have gone through the materials on record and we find that only one unit has been allowed to the land-holder, and for the deities. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration before us is whether or not the deities are entitled to any unit at all. Law is well settled that, in the Hindu Law, a deity can hold property of its own and is capable of suing and be sued in its own name. In this connection, the following findings of facts recorded by the learned Additional Collector are relevant: 5 “;g lgh gS fd xzke& jlyiqj cNyk, JhukFk ikj.k ,oa jkeiqj dY;k.kiqj Fkkuk clqvkjk ftyk njHkaxk esa rhu efUnj gS vkSj mlesa nsorkx,k LFkkfir gS vkSj mudk jkx&Hkksx yxk;k tkrk gS fdUrq ;s rhuksa LFky, eq[; LFky jlyiqj cNyk ds v/khu gS tks ,d fgUnq /kkfeZd U;kl gSA” (Emphasis added) It is thus evident that the learned Additional Collector has found that the main temple, and the two other temples, which have been treated to be its branches, if we are permitted to use that expression, are surely in existence. There is clear finding of Rag Bhog, Pooja, where hospitality is extended to the Sadhus. In other words, the existence of temples is not in doubt. Therefore, it appears to us that all the temples combined together should be taken to be covered by one Samarpannama to a single deity. 7. Law is well settled that the Act stands on a fundamentally different footing than the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In the case of latter, the intermediary had no title to the lands. On the other hand, the land-holder under the Act has a valid right, title and interest in the lands covered by the Act, and they are being deprived of the same because of the mandate of law. This Court has held in a number of decisions that in case of doubt or difficulty, this Court should lean in favour of the land- holder. Reference may be made to the following judgments delivered by one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.): 6 (i) 2004 (4) B.B.C.J. 167= 2004 (4) P.L.J.R. 323 (Baldeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others); (ii) 2004 (1) P.L.J.R. 80 (Mahanth Brij Narain Das Vs. The State of Bihar & others). (iii) 2004 (3) P.L.J.R. 838 (Punyadeo Sharma and others Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue and others). We must make it perfectly clear that these are judgments of a Single Judge. The instant judgment should not be taken to be an affirmance of the views of the Single Judge. The same are being relied on for the limited purpose of disposal of the present writ petition. 7.1) We, therefore, conclude that the better course of action is to allow one additional unit to the deities taken together. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended before us that Mahanth Fulena Das had donated a total area of 17 acres to set up a Government College and Government Hospital. In his submission, the learned authorities under the Act have erroneously concluded that only 9.88 acres of the 17 acres should be declared as surplus land, and the balance of 7.12 acres be included in the unit allowed to the petitioner. We are of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioners in this regard is fit to be upheld. Once it is held, as has been concurrently held by the three learned authorities, that Mahanth 7 Fulena Das had validly donated total area of 17 acres to the State Government to set up a Government College and Government Hospital, the whole of it should have been declared to be surplus land, and excluded from the unit(s) admissible to the petitioners. 9. No other contention has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioners shall be entitled to two units. It is further held that the total of the 17 acres donated to the State Government to set up a Government College and a Government Hospital shall be taken to be surplus land, beyond the two units admissible to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall also be allowed to exercise option of lands in terms of Section 9 of the Act. 11. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) J.N. Singh, J. I agree. (J.N. Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 26th day of July 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)