IMPORTANT POINT
In a public endowment, dedication is for use or benefit of public at large or a specified class but when property is set apart for worship of a family god in which public are not interested, endowment is a private one.

Headnote:West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 — Sections 14T(6), 14T(9), 14M(5) and 14M(6) — Ceiling in respect of religious or charitable endowment — Distinction made between private and public charitable institutions — In public endowment the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public at large or a specified class — Endowment is a private when property is set apart for worship of a family god in which public are not interested — Factors relevant for determining — Revenue Officer in an inquiry held that respondent trust was of public nature exclusively for charitable and religious purpose and thus was entitled to retain 7 standard hactares of land in terms of Section 14 M(6) of the Act — Order was upheld by appellant authority and by Tribunal — Writ — High Court held that dedication was not made for use or benefit of public at large and therefore endowment was of private nature — Appeal — High Court judgment showed that factual position was not considered in its proper perspective — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and matter to be remanded for consideration afresh.
       Held : Religious endowments are of two kinds, public and private. In a public endowment, the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public at large or a specified class. But when property is set apart for the worship of a family god, in which the public are not interested, the endowment is a private one. It is a question of tact whether a temple is a private or a public one. The extent of properties belonging to the temple, the course of conduct of the devotees, the supervision exercised by the founder and his descendants whether the rents and profits are exclusively utilised for the temple for a long period are relevant factors to be taken into consideration whether a temple is a public one or a private one as also public visiting the temple for Darshan and worship, appearance of the temple, association of members of public with the management and earlier statements or admission of parties. (Para 14)
       In order to ascertain whether a trust is a private, following factors are relevant:
       (1)If the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals;
       (2)If the grantor has been made in favour of an individual and not in favour of a deity;
       (3)The temple is situated within the campus of the residence of the donor;
       (4)If the revenue records or entries suggest the land being in possession of an individual and not in the deity. On the other hand an inference can be drawn that the temple along with the properties attached to it is a public trust:
       (1)If the public visit the temple as of right
       (2)If the endowment is the name of the deity.
       (3)The beneficiaries are the public.
       (4)If the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being scrutinized by the public. (Para 15)
       A bare reading of the High Courts judgment show that factual position has not been considered in its proper perspective and in fact High Court has not referred to several relevant documents and materials. (Para 16)
       The order on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent was passed on 21.1.2003. Obviously at that time the question of ceiling vis a vis private and public institutions were not relevant.(Para 19)
       The High Court does not appear to have considered all the relevant aspects and has come to abrupt conclusion and the following findings have been recorded:
       "No material has been shown by the petitioners which satisfies the requirements for holding the said endowment as to public nature." (Para 20)
       In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to it for consideration afresh. It shall consider the effect of the order in the earlier writ petition, effect of the submission made and the written statement and the prayer in the writ petition. These aspects shall be considered along with other materials to be placed by the parties. Needless to say on consideration of all the relevant material the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that an endowment which was the subject matter of controversy was private in nature. After so holding, the High Court directed the Revenue Officer and Ex-officio Deputy Land and Land Reforms Officer to decide afresh the matter taking note of the observations made and the findings recorded. It was directed that the decision was to be taken after affording all concerned parties opportunity of hearing.

3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Revenue officer initiated proceedings registered as 3/Hoogly of 2002 under Section 14T(6), 14T(9), 14M(5) and 14M(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short the Act) to cause enquiry in order to ascertain the total extent of land held by Deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur (hereinafter referred to as the Deity) and to decide the question as to whether the endowment is of public or private nature and connected issues. It is to be noted that under the Act, the Revenue Officer is the Ex-Officio Deputy Land and Land Reforms officer.

4. By order dated 3.12.2001, the Revenue Officer disposed of the proceedings allowing the Deity to retain 24.22 acres of land and directed vesting of rest of the land in the State. The Revenue Officer held that the endowment was of public nature exclusively for charitable and religious purpose and therefore was entitled to retain 7 standard hectares of land in terms of Section 14M(6) of the Act. Challenging the said order, an application numbered as O.A. 328 of 2002 was filed by the Shebaits of the said Deity before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming that the character of the Deity was private in nature. Aforesaid O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the applicants to prefer statutory appeal under the provisions of the Act before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, the designated appellate authority. Respondents preferred the statutory appeal in terms of Section 54 of the Act before the appellate authority. The appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 52 of 2002. By order dated 31.5.2002 the appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Officer.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment an appeal (O.A. No. 2175/2002) was preferred before the Tribunal claiming properties of the Deity as absolute and not the personal property of its Shebaits.

6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the OA holding that the contentions raised by the applicants before it were rightly rejected by the appellate authority for cogent reasons based on solid and unassailable materials.

7. Challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal, a Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court which was registered as W.P.L.R.T. No. 101 of 2003. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer, the appellate Authority and the Tribunal. As noted above certain directions were given. The High Court inter alia held that the dedication was not made for the use or benefit of the public at large or even a specified class of it and therefore the endowment was of private nature. It was noticed that neither the management nor the control over the expenditure was of the public and therefore set aside the orders.

8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State and its functionaries submitted that the High Court has fallen into grave errors by ignoring the fact that the respondents have taken different stands at different points of time. They themselves have accepted that the endowment was of a public nature. Reference in this is made to various orders including an order passed by a High Court in an earlier Writ Petition and the prayer made in the Writ Petition filed befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 748

IMPORTANT POINTIn a public endowment, dedication is for use or benefit of public at large or a specified class but when property is set apart for worship of a family god in which public are not interested, endowment is a private one.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a public endowment, dedication is for use or benefit of public at large or a specified class but when property is set apart for worship of a family god in which public are not interested, endowment is a private one.