Patna High Court - Orders
Suman Kumar Verma @ Monu Verma vs The Bihar Religious Trust Board And Ors on 22 April, 2019
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12737 of 2015
======================================================
Suman Kumar Verma @ Monu Verma, son of Late Mani Mohan Prasad
Verma, Sevaiyat, Sri Ram Janki Radha Krishna Thakurbari, resident of
village - Mohanda, P.S. + Anchal-Sikandra, District - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Bihar Religious Trust Board Patna through its Chairman having
its office at Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1.
2. The Chairman, Bihar Religious Trust Board Patna having its office at
Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1.
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamui.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamui.
6. The Circle Officer, Sikandra, District - Jamui.
7. Kamli Kant Singh @ Kamla Kant Singh, son of Late Sheo Balak
Singh, resident of village - Lohanda, P.S. + Anchal - Sikandra, District
- Jamui.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For B.S.B.R.T. : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha- GA-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2. 22-04-2019Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the President of the Bihar Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") has declared the Pprivate Trust of the petitioner as a Public Trust without holding any enquiry. He has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Pavitra Kuer Thakur Ram Jayaswal Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 578; to contend that before registering the present trust as a public trust an enquiry was a must and if it has not been done the very registration of a trust Patna High Court CWJC No.12737 of 2015(2) dt.22-04-2019 2/4 as public trust and exercise of power in relation to the Trust would be illegal.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the Board submits that in this case on receipt of the application of one Kamlakant Singh the Board had considered the relevant materials such as Katihan of the land standing in the name of deity Ram Janki and Radha Krishna Jee and the copy of Samarpannama in favour of these deities and only after being satisfied with the documents showing that it is in the nature of a Public Trust, the order dated 15.07.2014 was passed by the then President of the Board and it was registered as a Public Trust.
Learned senior counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Mundrika Kuer Vs. President Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts reported in 1968 BLJR 197; to submit that the question whether Trust is a Public Trust or Private Trust is a mixed question of law and it cannot be properly decided in the writ application. Learned senior counsel further relies upon the another Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Sri Raja Ram Agrawal reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 906; to submit that in terms of Clause (u) of sub- section (2) of Section 28 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.12737 of 2015(2) dt.22-04-2019 3/4 1950, it is the Religious Trust Board who will be competent to decide all questions including as to whether any trust is a Public Trust or Private Trust. It is, thus, submitted that the writ application is not fit to be entertained.
In addition to that, learned senior counsel has pointed out from counter affidavit that the petitioners are indulged in selling the land of the Thakurbari and they have executed as many as nine sale deeds in respect of the land of Thakurbari. An enquiry in this respect was also conducted by the Circle Officer, Sikandara who has submitted his report vide letter no. 75 dated 30.01.2015. Learned senior counsel submits that inadvertently it could not be placed on record. It is submitted that the copy of the report of the Circle Officer, Sikandara may be allowed to be placed with an affidavit within this week.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that in fact he had misplaced the copy of the counter affidavit served upon him earlier and for that reason he could not take steps to file rejoinder thereto.
Learned counsel representing the respondent no. 7 has informed this court that respondent no. 7 has died during pendency of the writ application.
Learned senior counsel for the Board submits that Patna High Court CWJC No.12737 of 2015(2) dt.22-04-2019 4/4 respondent no. 7 would not be a necessary party for adjudication in the present writ application because, it is, in fact, the action of the Religious Trust Board, which is under challenge and the Board would be contesting the issue with the petitioner.
List this case on Monday i.e. 29 th April, 2019 under the same heading to enable learned counsel for the parties to file their respective affidavits/rejoinder as the case may be.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/-
U