Important Point
It is not a particular image which is a juridical person but it is a particular bent of mind which consecrate the image.

Headnote:Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961-Section 5-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-One ‘M’ executed two separate deeds of dedication duly registered dedicating landed properties to deities-Appellants No. 1 and 2-Petitioner No. 3 after death of ‘M’ became Shebati of both deities-Dy. Collector in matter of fixation of ceiling area allowed two units to deities on ground that land gifted to two separate temples situated within area of land-Collector holding that mere existence of two temples by itself cannot be said to be ground for entitlement of two separate units under the Act-Question of exemption under Section 5 of the Act would not arise-Revision petition rejected-Writ petition to High Court allowed-Relief of two units granted -Order became final as no appeal filed-Writ petition by ‘B’ after two years-For issuance of mandatory order as regards allotment order in favour of petitioner-Matter remitted to High Court with direction to treat it as Review petition-Allowed by High Court - Earlier order recalled -Single Judge rejected contention of petitioner - Appeal - Whether Ram Jankiji and Raja Rani be termed to be Hindu deities-Separate juristic entities (Yes)-Factum of two idols cannot be denied-Two idols capable of being ascribed of juridical personality-Two units ought to be granted rather then one as has been effected by Single Judge-Petitioner No. 1 and 2 entitled to individual grant.
       Held : The factum of two idols cannot be denied and as such question of deprivation of another unit to the second idol does not and cannot arise. As regards the provisions of the statute, be it noted that there is no amount of controversy involved that in the event there are two idols capable of being ascribed of juridical personality, two units ought to be granted rather than one as has been effected by the learned Single Judge. (Para 24)
       We thus feel it expedient to record that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (or Thakur Raja as the case may be) are entitled to individual grant and thus entitlement for two units to be noted in the records of the Government and exemption of 75 acres Taal land only would be made available to the Petitioners and the balance 5 acres of land be made available to the Government and the State Government would be at liberty to deal with the above noted five acres of land in accordance with the law. (Para 25)

Judgement Key Points

The principle that a pujari cannot sue in a personal capacity is rooted in the concept that the deity is recognized as a juristic entity, separate from the individual pujari. The deity's rights and property are managed through authorized representatives, and legal actions pertaining to the deity are taken against or on behalf of the deity itself, not the pujari personally. Therefore, the pujari, in his capacity as a caretaker or manager, lacks the legal capacity to sue in his personal capacity because the rights and properties are vested in the deity as a legal person, not in the individual pujari (!) .

Judgment

Banerjee, J.-The core question that falls for consideration in this appeal, by the grant of special leave, is whether a Deity being consecrated by performance of appropriate ceremonies having a visible image and residing in its abode is to be treated as a juridical person for the purpose of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act XII of 1962).

2. On a reference to the factual backdrop, the records depict, that one Mahanath Sukhram Das did execute two separate deeds of dedication in December, 1950, and duly registered under the Indian Registration Act, dedicating therein the landed properties to the deities ‘Ram Janki Ji’ (Appellant No. 1) and Thakur Raja (wrongly described in the records of the High Court as ‘Raja Rani’) (Appellant No. 2). Both the deities were separately given the landed property to the extent of 81.14 acres of land and in fact were put in possession through the shebaits. After however the death of the aforesaid Mahanth Sukhram Das, Petitioner No. 3 became the shebait of both the deities. The properties of the deities were also duly registered and enlisted with the Religious Trust Board and the same are under the control and guidance of the Board.

3. Be it noted that both ‘Ram Janki Ji’ and ‘Raja Rani’ (for convenience sake since the High Court referred to the deity as such in place and stead of Thakur Raja) are located in two separate temples situated within the area of the land.

4. On the basis of an Inquiry Report, the Deputy Collector in the matter of fixation of Ceiling Area by his order dated 18th November, 1976 in Ceiling Case No. 222/76-77 allowed two units to the Deities, on the grounds that there are two temples to whom lands were gifted by means of separate registered deeds of Samarpan names and declared only 5 acres, as excess land, to be vested on to the State. The Collector of the District however, came to a conclusion different to the effect that mere existence of two temples by itself can not be said to be a ground for entitlement of two separate units under the Act, since the entire property donated to the two units are being managed by a committee formed under the direction of the Religious Trust Board and prior conferment of the managerial right to only one person and there being no evidence on record to show that the property donated to the deities are to be managed separately, having separate account, question of recommendation for exemption under Section 5 and entitlement of two units would not arise. As a matter of fact the Collector passed an order recording therein that the entitlement of the trust would be one unit only. The Revision Petition subsequent thereto however was rejected though on the ground of being hopelessly barred by the laws of limitation.

5. The records depict that against the order of the Member Board of Revenue, wherein the rights and contentions of the petitioners to hold two units for two separate deities were rejected, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court in Writ Petition 5020 of 1984 for quashing of the orders passed by the Collector and Member Board of Revenue. The record further depicts that the High Court on 19th November 1984 allowed the Writ Petition and granted the relief of two units as claimed by the petitioner. The judgment of the High Court became final and binding between the parties by reason of the factum of there being no appeal therefrom.

6. Subsequently however, after about two years a Writ Petition was filed before this Court under Article 32 of the constitution being Civil Writ No. 52563 of 1985 (Badra Mahato v. State of Bihar) wherein one Badra Mahato prayed for issuance of a mandatory order as regards the allotment order in favour of the petitioner (the aforesaid Badra Mahato). This Court, however, remitted the matter to the High Court with a direction that the petition before this Court be treated as a Review Petition before High Court and be disposed of acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 590

Important PointIt is not a particular image which is a juridical person but it is a particular bent of mind which consecrate the image.

Important Point
It is not a particular image which is a juridical person but it is a particular bent of mind which consecrate the image.