Jharkhand High Court
Purushottam Lal Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 6 September, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 (2) AJR 321
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, D.N.Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 240 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 3280 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 3281 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 6450 of 2017
With
I.A. No. 6444 of 2017
--
Purushottam Lal Sharma, Shebait/ Pujari and Trustee of the Hari
Sabha Temple at Dumka, son of Late Govind Prasad Sharma,
Shebait/ Pujari and Trustee of Hari Sabha Temple at Dumka, son of
Late Prahlad Pujari, at Hari Sabha Dumka, PO & PS Dumka Sub-
division and District Dumka. ...Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The President, Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board, Jail
Road, Ranchi;
3. The Assistant Superintendent, Jharkhand State Hindu Religious
Trust Board, Jail Road, Ranchi;
4. The Assistant Superintendent (Ashok Kumar Ray), Jharkhand
State Hindu Religious Trust Board, Jail Road, Ranchi;
5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka;
6. Sri Hari Krishna Sah, Alka Printing Works, Thakurwari Road,
Dumka. ...Respondents
---
CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.;
Mr. Rishi Pallava, J.C. to A.A.G.;
Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Advocate.
--
08/ Dated 06.09.2017:
(Oral Order)
Per D.N.Patel, A.C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 757 of
2006 dated 27.04.2016, whereby, the petition preferred by father of
this appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and
hence, the present appellant, being son of the original petitioner,
has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. This appellant has
also preferred I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 in the writ petition for the
2
substitution, that was also rejected by the learned Single Judge. In
this Letters Patent Appeal also I.A. No. 6450 of 2017 has been
preferred seeking leave to prefer an appeal. Leave to appeal is
granted as this appellant is son of original petitioner.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that this
appellant has been adopted and accepted as a son by Govind
Prasad Sharma, who is the original petitioner. This appellant is a
biological son of the original petitioner also. Thus, it is submitted by
the counsel for the appellant that though the appellant is a son of
the original petitioner, but, for getting a right of Sewayat/Pujari of
one temple viz. Hari Sabha Temple, situated in the district of Dumka
as he has been adopted and accepted as his son. This appellant
has been accepted as Ghrihast Chela. Though this appellant is the
son of the original petitioner, nonetheless, the original petitioner has
also accepted and adopted as Ghrihast Chela. After adopting all the
Sanskar, according to Hindu Religion and Sanskriti of Hari Sabha
Mandir, Dumka, this appellant is claiming to be Sewayat/ Pujari of
Hari Sabha Mandir and he wants to occupy the premises within the
temple and is claiming himself to be a Trustee. This appellant is
claiming that his father was also Sewayat/ Pujari and/or Trustee.
Hence, the constitution of the Trust Committee of Hari Sabha
Mandir was under challenge. Counsel for the appellant has relied
upon several documents, which are annexed with I.A. No. 6444 of
2017 as well as I.A. No. 3280 of 2016. On the basis of these
documents, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that his
father was also a Sewayat/ Pujari and as his father has adopted this
appellant as Ghrihast Chela, this appellant is also a Sewayat/
Pujari and/or Trustee. This aspect of the matter has not been
properly appreciated by the Religious Trust Board while constituting
a Trust Committee for Hari Sabha Mandir Trust, Dumka. Counsel for
the appellant has relied upon Section 2(n) and Section 28(2)(s) of
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 and on the basis of these
provisions of law, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that
this appellant is a Trustee of Hari Sabha Mandir Trust, situated at
Dumka. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that
3
application has already been pending under Section 28(2)(s) of the
Act, 1950, which is at Annexure- L/11 of I.A. No. 6450 of 2017. This
application is pending before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Hindu
Religious Trust Board. On the basis of aforesaid documents, which
are annexed with two interlocutory applications, it is submitted that
the name of this appellant should have been included as a Trustee
of the Hari Sabha Mandir Trust. These aspects of the matter have
not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the father of this appellant,
bearing W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006 vide order dated 27.04.2016 nor
these aspects have been appreciated by the learned Single Judge,
while dismissing I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 preferred in W.P.(C) No.
757 of 2006. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this
appellant is a Sewayat/ Pujari of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka.
Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the document, which is at
Annexure-L/14 annexed with I.A. No. 6450 of 2017 and it is
submitted that meeting of the committee has never convened and
the decision has been taken. It is further submitted by counsel for
the appellant that on the basis of Annexures-L/15 & L/16 annexed
with I.A. No. 6450 of 2017, decision has been taken by the
respondents not independently, but, at the behest of Hon'ble Chief
Minister of the State of Jharkhand.
3. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of
Jharkhand, has submitted that this appellant has failed to establish
a right of Sewayat/ Pujari. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate
General of the State of Jharkhand that original petitioner, who is the
father of this appellant, was illegally occupying the premises of the
temple, in question, as residential building. It is further submitted by
the Additional Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand that this
appellant is a practicing Advocate in Civil Court, Dumka and he has
also illegally occupied the premises of temple and run his office and
chambers in the said temple premises without any authority.
Additional Advocate General has further submitted that post of
Sewayat/ Pujari is not a hereditary post. Power to appoint Sewayat/
Pujari is vested with the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust
4
Board under the Act, 1950 and therefore, the present appellant is
not entitled to be substituted in place of the original petitioner nor
any leave to prefer an appeal can be given to this appellant. It is
further submitted by Additional Advocate General that the Board is
empowered to appoint fresh Sewayat/ Pujari on the basis of
recommendations made by the Trust Committee. Additional
Advocate General has also pointed out that the original petitioner
was never appointed as Sewayat/ Pujari and/or Trustee and hence,
nothing can be percolated to his son, who is appellant. On the
contrary, they are creating hindrances in performing rituals in the
temple and they are illegally using the temple premises as his
residence. Additional Advocate General has further submitted that
original petitioner as well as this appellant has relied upon the
gazette notification dated 23.03.1994 of the Government of Bihar.
Looking to this document, nothing is in favour of this appellant. In
fact, by this notification, objections were invited from all the
concerns. By virtue of this notification, neither any right was given in
favour of father of this appellant nor in favour of this appellant. It is
further submitted by the Additional Advocate General that neither
trust deed is on record nor any document, which substantiate the
contention of the original petitioner or this appellant that they were
ever appointed as Trustee. Even a show-cause notice has been
given to the original petitioner as well as to this appellant, who is a
son, alleging that they are misusing the trust premises. Claim of this
appellant has already been rejected vide minutes dated 05.06.2006,
issued by the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Chairman, Hari Sabha
Mandir Religious Trust Committee. It is further submitted by the
Additional Advocate General that the aforesaid resolution has
attained its finality because neither father nor son has ever
challenged this resolution. It is further submitted by the Additional
Advocate General that committee has already been constituted for
the management of the Hari Sabha Mandir Trust and this committee
is authorized to take a decision in the matter of removal of
Sewayat/ Pujari, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of the Trust. Additional Advocate General has
5
further submitted that as per Section 2(n) of the Act, 1950, which
defines "trustee". Neither the present appellant nor the original
petitioner has been able to substantiate the contention that they
were ever appointed as Trustee. Similarly, neither the original
petitioner nor this appellant has established that they were
appointed as Trustee under the original trust deed. Thus, neither the
original petitioner nor this appellant is the original Trustee nor they
were ever appointed as Trustee. These aspects of the matter have
been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the original petitioner as
well as while dismissing the interlocutory application being I.A. No.
6370 of 2013, preferred by this appellant, in writ petition being W.P.
(C) No. 757 of 2006. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate
General that this appellant has failed to prove that the post of
Sewayat/ Pujari is a hereditary post in a religious public trust and
hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this
Court.
REASONS
4. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain
this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and
reasons:
(i) Original petitioner is Govind Prasad Sharma, who is petitioner
in W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006, questioning the constitution of the Trust
Committee of Hari Sabha Mandir Trust by the Religious Trust Board
under the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950.
(ii) Looking to the documents, which are annexed with the writ
petition as well as in the two interlocutory applications, preferred in
this Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that the original petitioner was
never appointed as Trustee. Original trust deed is not on record at
all. This appellant is the son of the original petitioner. He claims to
be Sewayat/ Pujari of the temple in question. It is also alleged by
the appellant that he has been adopted and accepted as son of the
original petitioner. This appellant has been accepted as Ghrihast
Chela after giving all Sanskar. This contention has not been
6
accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that once we are not
accepting the original petitioner as Sewayat/ Pujari, there is no
question of accepting the right of this appellant as Sewayat/ Pujari
whatsoever arises.
(iii) Original petitioner has failed to prove that he is the original
Trustee because there is no original trust deed on record. Similarly,
original petitioner has also failed to prove that he was appointed by
anybody as Trustee and/or as Sewayat/ Pujari.
(iv) On the contrary, a show-cause notice has also been given to
the original petitioner as well as to this appellant that they are
illegally occupying the temple premises. This appellant is an
Advocate and he is running his office from the temple.
(v) It further appears from the facts of the case that Sub-divisional
Officer-cum-Chairman, Hari Sabha Mandir Religious Trust
Committee has also rejected the claim of the appellant as well as
original petitioner as Sewayat of the Trust vide minutes dated
05.06.2006. This resolution was never under challenge neither by father-original petitioner nor by son-appellant.
(vi) This appellant has failed to establish that post of Sewayat/ Pujari is a hereditary post. On the contrary, Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board is vested with the power to appoint Sewayat/ Pujari. Only Board is empowered to appoint fresh Sewayat/ Pujari on the basis of the recommendations made by trust committee.
(vii) Thus, it appears from the facts of the case that neither the original petitioner nor this appellant was ever appointed as Sewayat/ Pujari and they are creating hindrances in performance of rituals in the temple and they are illegally using the premises of the temple as their residence and this appellant is using the temple premises as his office/chambers.
(viii) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the gazette notification dated 23.03.1994, published by Government of Bihar, which is at Annexure-L/10 to I.A. No. 6450 of 2017, preferred in this Letters Patent Appeal. We have perused the gazette notification. Looking to this gazette notification, it cannot be said that this appellant or the original petitioner was ever appointed as Trustee 7 and/or Sewayat/ Pujari of the temple. On the contrary, objections were invited from all the concerns and nothing beyond that. Thus, the said notification is of no help to this appellant.
(ix) Section 2(n) and Section 28(2)(s) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 read as under:
"2. Definition.-.........................................................
(a)............................................................................
(b)............................................................................
(c).............................................................................
............................................................................... ................................................................................
(n) "trustee" means any person, by whatever designation known, appointed to administer a religious trust either verbally or under any deed or instrument or in accordance with the usage of such trust or by the District Judge or any other competent authority, and includes any person appointed by a trustee to perform the duties of a trustee and any member of a Committee or any other person for the time being managing or administering any trust property as such;
28. General powers and duties of the Board.
(1).............................................................................. (2)..............................................................................
(a)..............................................................................
(b)..............................................................................
(c).............................................................................. ................................................................................. .................................................................................
(s) to permit a trustee to retire from his office and, in case the trustee has power to appoint his successor, to permit him to make the appointment in his life time; and to appoint trustee in vacancies created by the removal under section 28(2)(h) subject to the wishes of the founder or to a mutual compromise between the Board and the Trust approved by any competent court."
(x) In view of the aforesaid provisions, original petitioner, who himself was neither Trustee nor Sewayat/ Pujari, has no power, jurisdiction and authority to appoint this appellant-son as Trustee or Sewayat/ Pujari.
(xi) "e wy k s ukfLr dq r k s 'kk[kk " If the original petitioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority as Trustee or Sewayat/ Pujari, there is no question of whatsoever arises for this appellant to claim himself as Trustee or as Sewayat/ Pujari. On the contrary, show-cause notices have been issued to both of them for illegal usage of the temple 8 premises and the Chairman, Hari Sabha Mandir Religious Trust Committee vide minutes dated 05.06.2006 has rejected the claim of the original petitioner to continue as a Sewayat of the Trust and this resolution has never been challenged by any one. This resolution has attained its finality.
(xii) Section 28(2)(s) of the Act, 1950 is applicable to the Trust and not to the Sewayat/ Pujari. Original petitioner was neither an original Trustee because original trust deed is not on record at all nor the original petitioner was ever appointed by anyone as Trustee. On the contrary, when the original petitioner is not a Trustee, this appellant cannot claim to be appointed as Trustee. When the original petitioner is not a Sewayat/ Pujari and the said post is not a hereditary post, this appellant cannot claim to be appointed as Sewayat/ Pujari because this appellant has failed to prove that Sewayat/ Pujari is a hereditary post in a religious public trust. On the contrary, power is vested with the Board to appoint Sewayat/ Pujari. Board is also empowered to appoint new Sewayat/ new Pujari on the basis of recommendation made by the trust committee. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006 vide order dated 27.04.2016 preferred by the original petitioner as well as while dismissing I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 preferred by this appellant in W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006 because original petitioner expired and this appellant had prayed for his substitution by filing I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as well as interlocutory application on the ground that neither the original petitioner was having any right as Trustee nor the original petitioner had any right as Sewayat/ Pujari mainly for the reason that such Sewayat/ Pujari post is not a hereditary post at all.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 757 of 2006 with I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 vide 9 order dated 27.04.2016. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), which will be paid by this appellant to Hari Sabha Mandir Trust within six weeks from today. Since long father as well as son have used temple premises as their residence. This appellant is using temple premises as office of lawyer.
6. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, all the four above-mentioned interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
7. Registrar General of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order to Hari Sabha Mandir Trust, Dumka.
(D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra,J.) NAFR-SD/SB