Back
1992 Supreme(Pat) 410
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shashank Kr.Singh, J.
Ananda Mohan Pandey
Versus
Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 51196 of 1983 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 12, 1992
The Board had no authority to pass the impugned order after the decision of the competent authority Under Sec. 43 of the Act.
Headnote:
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - SEC. 43 - TRUST - NATURE OF TRUST - DETERMINATION - JURISDICTION - BOARD OR AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 43 - POWER TO DECIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The erstwhile Raja of Pakur established different deities at different times. The last holder of the said Estate Rani Joytirmoyee Devi had no issue. She executed a deed of trust on 30-6-1947 whereby she has endowed some properties mentioned in the said deed of endowment in favor of the family of the deities in order to provide for their Rag, Bhog and daily worship. She appointed herself as the first Shebait. She also made provision for appointment of Shebait or shebaits after her death. The said endowment was subject-matter of consideration before this Court: in Compensation Appeal No. 5/68, decided on 31-1-1970. The competent authority Under Sec. 43 of the Act by order dated 30th January, 1959 in Case No. 20/58, after due consideration of the relevant facts and the Trust Deed held "that the trust was of a private nature to meet the perpetual worship and maintenance of the family deities." Rani Joytirmoyee Devi died on 3-2-1968. After her death, the trust properties devolved upon the nominees under the endowment deed. Respondent No. 5 with mala fide and oblique motive started laying claim over the entire properties to usurp the shebaitship upon himself and without any knowledge to the petitioner, obtained an order from the special officer of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were passed without proper notice or giving proper opportunity to the petitioners and as such, the same are violative of the principle of natural justice. The Board ought to have given a proper show-cause notice to the petitioners against the proposed action which was liable to be taken by the Board. The substance of the complaints should have also been incorporated in the said notice. The notice should have been issued individually to all the petitioners and proper opportunity ought to have been given. On the other hand, the Board acted arbitrarily and in hot haste.
Issues: Whether the Board had the authority to pass the impugned order after the decision of the competent authority Under Sec. 43 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Board or its special officers are not competent in law to declare the trust to be a public trust, particularly after the order of the competent authority Sec. 43 of the Act ; Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should not have passed the said order after lapse of 23 years when the said matter had been conclusively decided by the competent authority and lastly it has been submitted that the impugned orders, haying been passed without any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, are in violative of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ application succeeds to the extent as indicated above ; but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Shashank Kumar Singh, J.
1. The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 7-11-1983 vide Annexure-1, passed by the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and it has further been prayed that the communication dated 9 10-1982 (Annexure-2) sent from the Special Officer to the Respondent No. 5, be also quashed.
2. The short facts relating to the present application are that the erstwhile Raja of Pakur established different deities at different times. The last holder of the said Estate Rani Joytirmoyee Devi had no issue. She executed a deed of trust on 30-6-1947 whereby she has endowed some properties mentioned in the said deed of endowment in favour of the family of the deities in order to provide for their Rag, Bhog and daily worship. She appointed herself as the first Shebait. She also made provision for appointment of Shebait or shebaits after her death. The said endowment was subject-matter of consideration before this Court: in Compensation Appeal No. 5/68, decided on 31-1-1970. The competent authority Under Sec. 43 of the Act by order dated 30th January, 1959 in Case No. 20/58, after due consideration of the relevant facts and the Trust Deed held "that the trust was of a private nature to meet the perpetual worship and maintenance of the family deities." Annexure-3 is the copy of the said order.
3. It has further been stated that the said Rani Joytirmoyee Devi died on 3-2-1968. After her death, the trust properties devolved upon the nominees under the endowment deed. In the aforesaid compensation appeal this Court affirmed the finding of the Additional Collector by which the Additional Collector had upheld the claims of one Uma Pandey and Anand Mohan Pandey both sons of Rama Prasad Prasad Pandey, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Amiya Kumar Pandey sons of Kamla Prasad Pandey to the annuity in respect of the Debettar estate which so long was being paid to Rani Joytirmoyee Devi. The petitioner along with Respondent No. 5 and Ashok Kumar Pandey (since dead) were managing the affairs of the Trust as Shebait. Subsequently, it is stated that Respondent No. 5 with mala fide and oblique motive started laying claim over the entire properties to usurp the shebaitship upon himself and without any knowledge to the petitioner, obtained an order from the special officer of the Board. When the petitioners came to know about the said communication (Annexure-2), they filed an objection before the Additional Collector, Dumka. As directed by the Additional Collector, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Respondent No. 4 made enquiry and submitted his enquiry report (Annexure-4) upholding the claim of the petitioners. The Additionl Collector, thereafter forwarded the said report to the Board vide Annexure-4-A.
4. According to the petitioners, the Board thereafter, without issuing any notice or giving opportunity to the petitioners rejected their claim and upheld the easier communication by Annexure 2 vide order dated 7-9-1983 (Annexure-1).
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on several courts. According to him, after the decision of the competent authority Under Sec. 43 of the Act, the Board had no authority to pass the impugned order. It has further been contended that the Board or its special officers are not competent in law to declare the trust to be a public trust, particularly after the order of the competent authority Sec. 43 of the Act ; Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should not have passed the said order after lapse of 23 years when the said matter had been conclusively decided by the competent authority and lastly it has been submitted that the impugned orders, haying been passed without any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, are in violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also reli
