Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Mahant Chandrma Das, Chela of Late Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das – Appellant
Versus
Haribansh Rai S/o Late Krishna Dev Rai – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.383 of 2023
Decided on : 26-07-2023
Article 227 - Religious Trust Property Dispute - Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1947, Section 32(3), Section 32(4), Section 55 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, particularly Section 32(3) and Section 32(4), and highlighted the appealable nature of orders passed by the District Judge under the Act. The court emphasized the finality of orders under Section 32(4) and the appeal provision under Section 55, ultimately dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Application as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a duly appointed Mahanth of a Religious Trust, challenged an order directing the deposit of rent and vacation of trust property. The respondents argued that the order was passed under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act and was final, and therefore, the application was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act and was final, and thus held the Civil Miscellaneous Application as not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Application under Article 227 in light of the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, particularly Section 32(3), Section 32(4), and Section 55, to determine the appealable nature of the orders passed by the District Judge and ultimately held the application as not maintainable.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Application was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty given to the petitioner to file a Miscellaneous Appeal, if advised.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The order passed by the Additional District Judge in the case was under Section 32(3) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, which grants the District Judge the authority to vary, modify, or set aside schemes related to religious trusts. The order also included directions regarding deposit of rent and vacating trust property (!) (!) .
The order was considered final under Section 32(4) of the Act, which states that any order passed by the District Judge under this section is final and not subject to further review except through an appeal (!) .
The respondent argued that, given the finality of the order under Section 32(4), the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable, and that the proper remedy was an appeal to the High Court (!) .
The court examined the relevant provisions, including Section 55 of the Act, which provides that orders of the District Judge are appealable to the High Court unless otherwise specified. The court noted that, in the absence of any specific provision excluding appeals, an appeal would generally lie against such orders (!) (!) .
The court observed that, despite the general right to appeal, the finality clause in Section 32(4) indicates that certain orders are conclusive, and thus, proceedings under Article 227 are not appropriate for challenging such orders (!) .
Consequently, the court held that the Civil Miscellaneous Application was not maintainable because the order was final and appealable, and dismissed the application on this basis (!) .
However, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a proper appeal in accordance with the law, should they choose to do so (!) .
The court emphasized that the District Judge, acting under Section 32 of the Act, is a subordinate court, and that the statutory provisions clearly outline the appellate process, which must be followed (!) (!) .
In summary, the court clarified the legal position regarding the appealability of orders under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act and dismissed the application as not maintainable, while allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal if desired.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India against part of the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge IVth, Buxar in Miscellaneous Case No. 108/2022 whereby and whereunder the learned court below directed inter alia, that the rent etc. of the trust property be deposited in bank account of the trust till the constitution of Managing Committee by Board in accordance with law and its notification in compliance of order of High Court, Patna and also directed that one Kedarnath Singh and other illegal occupant over portion of the trust property be vacated forthwith.
3. As per the petition, the petitioner is a duly appointed Mahanth of Shri Badi Mathiya, Ram Rekha Ghat, Buxar which is under the main Math of Shri Hanuman Garhi Mandir, Dibrugarh, Assam. Badi Mathiya is duly constituted Religious Trust with the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter be referred as ‘the Board’). It is under Mutwaliship/Mahanthi and no Managing Committee can be constituted for looking after the affairs of the Trust. The present Mahanth Chandrama Das (petitioner) is the Chela of Mahanth Ramlakhan Das who vide a registered deed dated 16.03.1989 had appointed him to be the new Mahanth of Shri Hanuman Garhi Mandir, Dibrugarh, Assam and Shri Badi Mathiya, Ramrekha Ghat, Buxar. Accordingly, after death of Mahanth Ramlakhan Das, the petitioner took over the charge of Mahanti of the trust in question.
4. The further claim of the petitioner is that when the petitioner took charge of the Math, several illegal occupants were occupying the immovable property of the Math against whom action was taken up at the instance of the petitioner. They were creating hurdles in day to day business of the Math and trying to take over the affairs of the Math anyhow and in this regard they are making frivolous allegations against the petitioner to the Board. A public interest litigation bearing CWJC No. 13432 of 2021 was filed by one Pushpa Devi which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2021 directing her to approach the Board. Subsequently she again filed CWJC No. 19607 of 2021 in which this Court directed the Board to take a decision on her complaint within a period of three months.
5. The Board vide order dated 22.03.2022 held that said Pushpa Devi is no way interested in the welfare of the trust and there is no genuine complaint against the petitioner. However, the Board suggested formation of a committee to aid and advice the petitioner. One Jay Prakash Singh filed a PIL bearing CWJC No. 7303 of 2022 and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2022 directed that management Committee to be constituted within 60 days as directed by the Chairman/President of the Board in his order dated 22.03.2022. Satish Kumar, employee of the Board submitted the inspection report on 11.08.2022 to the Board with respect to irregularity against the trust. The Board issued order dated 17.08.2022 constituting a committee and directed Kedarnath Singh to vacate the premises followed by a notification dated 13.09.2022 constituting a six member committee. The petitioner is not included in the committee and has been made custodian. The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.08.2022 and notification dated 13.09.2022 & 22.03.2022 before this Court by CWJC No. 15039 of 2022 which is pending.
6. One Haribansh Rai, Respondent No. 1, a paid staff of the Trust also challenged the order of Trust by filing Miscellaneous Case No. 108/2022 in which the impugned order has been passed.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not impleaded as a party before the Court below nor any notice was issued to him or Kedarnath Singh but aggrieved by the impugned order which is directly affecting the petitioner. The issue of the rent of shops over plot No. 1055 under Khata No. 488 and residential area over plot No. 1063 under K
The issue of whether a trust is a private trust or a public trust must be decided in an appropriate proceeding, and the notices issued by the Board were found to be within its jurisdiction.
The main legal point established is the finality of the Board's decision on whether a trust is public or private, and the right of the aggrieved party to challenge the decision in a Civil Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
