The main legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of arbitrary state action and the requirement for fair and transparent state action, especially when it can potentially affect the rights of the parties.

ORDER :

1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama in R.M Case No. 35 of 2018, whereby direction has been issued for taking over possession of Dharamshala/Smriti Bhawan and handing over the same to Nagar Panchayat, Mahagama till the title dispute between the parties is settled through the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in memo no. 204 dated 10.02.2020, whereby direction has been given by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama for handing over the Dharamshala/Smriti Bhawan to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Mahgama with an order to him to operate the said Dharamshala for the benefit of general public.

2. W.P.(C) No. 771 of 2020 has been taken as lead case for deciding the present writ petitions wherein the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1824 of 2020 has been impleaded as respondent no. 5.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no. 1 – Trust has been constituted by the family members of Tibrewal family for carrying out charitable activities. The land having an area of 10 Katthas situated in Mouza Mahagama, Kamat Khata No. 200, Dag No. 425 (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) was settled by the original landlord namely, Babu Bansidhar Dhandhania for the purpose of establishment of Dharamshala in favour of Babu Ram Awtar Ram Marwari, who is ancestor of the trustee of the petitioner – Trust and the grandfather of the petitioner no. 2. The said land has been in possession of the family members of the settlee since 1939 and though no concrete structure could be established over the said land, temporary structures were made over it for charitable purpose. In the meeting of the board of trustees of the petitioner – Trust dated 18.07.2005, it was resolved to construct permanent structure of Dharamshala for the benefit of general public and thereafter the said Dharamshala was constructed and inaugurated on 02.11.2009. It was operated and managed by the petitioners for charitable purposes for the use of people at large on payment of nominal charges. Names of the ancestors of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were already entered in Register-II by creating jamabandi in their name vide Rent Fixation Case No. 1 of 1979-80. The rent of the said land was regularly paid by them and rent receipts were issued till the year 2008-09. In the recent survey conducted in village Mahagama, possession of the land in question has been recorded in favour of the trustee of the petitioner. However, some unscrupulous elements of the society wanted to grab the said Dharamshala from the petitioners. The respondent no. 5 obtained power of attorney from the descendants of original landlord and started creating disturbance in operation of the Dharamshala. As such, the petitioners closed the Dharamshala temporarily. The respondent no. 5 [the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1824 of 2020] filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, a copy of which was also sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, Godda alleging that the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were trying to grab the said Dharamshala by obtaining the same to start free computer centre and beauty parlour training centre. The respondent no. 5 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to intervene in the matter and to get the lock of the said Dharamshala opened. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, Godda directed the Circle Officer, Mahagama to submit report by conducting spot verification. The Circle Officer, Mahagama submitted the report vide letter no. 826 dated 27.11.2017 stating that the said Dharamshala had been constructed by the petitioner no. 2 and was being operated by the petitioner no. 4 by booking the same for marriage, Bhagwat Katha, meeting etc. and there was no beauty parlour being operated on the said premises. However, the S