1. Land dedicated to a deity — Dispute over retention of khas land under Section 6(1)(i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1273
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : M.Srinivasan : N.Santosh Hegde
State Of West Bengal
Versus
Atis Chandra Sinha
Case No. : 2448 of 1982
Date of Decision : 10/28/99
The nature of a religious endowment is determined by its establishing documents. Misuse of income by trustees does not alter the character of the property or disqualify it from being 'held exclusively for religious or charitable purposes' under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - Section 6(1)(i) - Land held for religious or charitable purposes - Intermediary’s right to retain land - Determination of purpose - To determine whether property is held exclusively for religious or charitable purposes, the terms of the trust deed or other establishing documents must be examined - The mere fact that trustees or shebaits may not be utilizing the income for the purpose for which it was meant to be used cannot detract from the fact that the endowment was established wholly and exclusively for religious or charitable purposes. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Land was dedicated to a deity and confirmed as debuttar property by an arbitrator's award which was made a rule of court. Following the enactment of land acquisition legislation, the state government initially allowed the estate to retain khas land under the relevant section. Subsequently, a settlement officer initiated proceedings and concluded that because a substantial portion of the income derived from the khas land was spent for purposes other than religious or charitable, the debuttar was not entitled to the benefit of the provision allowing the retention of land held exclusively for such purposes.
Findings of Court:
The endowment was genuine and not illusory, as it had been specifically dedicated to a deity and confirmed by a court-approved award. The property was established to be used exclusively for religious or charitable purposes.
Issues: Whether land dedicated to a deity falls within the purview of Section 6(1)(i) of the Act if the proceeds or income from the said land are not being used exclusively for the benefit of the deity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the character of the property as being held exclusively for religious or charitable purposes is determined by the establishing documents or trust deed. The subsequent failure of the trustees or shebaits to apply the income for the intended purpose does not alter the nature of the endowment or disqualify the land from the protection of Section 6(1)(i).
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether diversion of income for non-religious purposes disqualifies land from being held exclusively for religious purposes — Whether the endowment was illusory. (Para 8 )
3. The purpose of an endowment is determined by its establishing documents; misuse of income by trustees does not alter the exclusive religious nature of the endowment. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. The exclusive religious nature of an endowment is determined by its establishing documents, regardless of whether the income is actually utilized for the intended purpose. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 11 )
6. How is it determined if land is held exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Section 6(1)(i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953?
To determine whether property is held exclusively for religious or charitable purposes, the court examines the terms of the trust deed or other documents by which the institution was established. (Para 10 )
7. Does the diversion of income from a religious endowment for non-religious purposes disqualify the land from being considered exclusively held for religious purposes?
No. The fact that trustees or shebaits may not be utilizing the income for the purpose for which it was meant to be used does not detract from the fact that the endowment was established wholly and exclusively for religious or charitable purposes. (Para 10 )
8. Can a court-approved arbitrator's award be used to establish the validity of a religious endowment?
Yes. If an arbitrator's award, which has been made a rule of court, concludes that specific land belongs to a deity and is not liable for partition, the endowment must be regarded as genuine and not illusory. (Para 9 )
(1) THE only question which arises in this appeal is that land which was dedicated to the deity before the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") was enacted would fall within the purview of Section 6(1)(i) of the said Act if the proceeds or income from the said land are not being used exclusively for the benefit of the deity.
(2) THE facts briefly stated are that the land in question originally belonged to the Singha family of the Paikpara Raj. Some of the property belonging to this family was dedicated to Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiew Thakur, with which we are concerned in the present appeal. It appears that amongst the members of the family dispute arose pertaining to the manner in which the property belonging to the family was to be partitioned. Reference was first made to one Arthur Phillips to act as an arbitrator and give his award. Subsequently, Sir R.C. Mitter was appointed as an arbitrator by order dated 9-5-1892 passed in a suit which was pending between the parties. The terms of reference to the said arbitrator included the question as to which were the properties which belonged to debuttar and were, therefore, not liable to be partitioned. The arbitrator Sir R.C. Mitter gave his award and included in Schedule A-1 list of debuttar properties which, in terms of his award, were not liable for partition as the same had been dedicated to Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiew Thakur. The said award, which also dealt with the properties which could be partitioned, was then made the rule of the court.
(3) WITH the promulgation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, all the estates stood vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 6 deals with the rights of intermediaries to retain certain lands. It is not in dispute that as per the definition of the word "intermediary" occurring in Section 2(i), the shebaits were intermediaries within the meaning of the said Act. Section 6(1), inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 and 5 an intermediary shall be entitled to retain with effect from the date of vesting certain lands. We are here concerned with clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 which reads as follows:
"6. (1)(i) where the intermediary is a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or is a person holding under a trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a purpose which is charitable or religious or both land held in khas by such corporation or institution, or person, for such purpose including land held by any person, not being a tenant, by leave or licence of such corporation or institution or person."
(4) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 6 stipulates that an intermediary who is entitled to retain possession of any land under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to hold such land directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant, subject to such terms as may be prescribed. From the reading of Sections 4 and 6 together, it is clear that with the promulgation of the said Act, the rights of intermediaries in the estates came to an end and the said estates vested in the State Government. Section 6(l)(i) read with sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that in the case of those intermediaries which hold land exclusively for religious or charitable purposes and the land is held in khas then the said intermediaries would continue to remain in possession of the said land but they would be regarded as tenants under the State Government though they would not be liable to pay any rent.
(5) IT is not in dispute that some of the land of the debuttar was not khas land and the same had been given to tenants. In the present case, we are not concerned with the said land which had been tenanted. With regard to khas land after orders were passed by the State Government, on representation having been filed by the respond
