Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Swetambers in the early hours of the day wash the sacred images, clothe them and decorate before worship. Such ornamentation and decoration after washing once remain for the whole of the day while Digambars remove all coverings of idols and wash them and offer Pujas to the sacred images and foot prints. All the time when Puja or worship is done, the idols or foot prints arc washed.

4. According to the belief of the Jains, there were twenty four highly adorned personage who were called Thirthankars and these 24 Thirthankars are in many respect as per belief amongst the Jains higher in status than the Gods or some of the Goddesses as believed in Hindu Mythology. Out of these 24 Thirthankars, it is believed by Jains that 20 have attained Nirwan or Salvation in the present cycle of world history overthe hill of Parasnath, as a result of which the whole hill is held in reverance by the Jains. The hill has got natural remarkable features having several peaks, 24 spots apparently marked by natural features and believed to be sacred, out of which 20 spots marked specially are believed to be the place wherefrom 20 Thirthankars had left for heavenly abode and the foot prints marked there are being worshipped. These 20 spots have been set apart from remote antiquity. It is believed by the Jains that rest of four Thirthankars attained salvation in other parts of the Country but in their commemoration, conventional beliefs have been herein the hill itself. There is also a shrine called Gautam Swami and an important temple in one of the highest parts of the mountain called "Jal Mandir" having certain platforms set apart for religious contemplation. There are Dharmshalas or rest houses for pilgrims. According to the belief of Jain Community, a person must visit once this revered Parasnath hill in his lifetime. The history runs thus that Parasnath hill and the village Madhuban were situated within the ambit of Gaddi Palganj which was settled with the Raja's predecessors as far back as in the year 1780. In the year 1829, Gaddipalganj was registered by the Collector of the District as belonging to the Rajas of Palganj and Pargana register was also prepared in the name of Raja of Palganj and as such both Madhuban and hill Parasnath were remained as part of Gaddi of Palganj, Zamindar/Raja of Gaddi Palganj was settled with the properties long back and revenue records were prepared so, but as the Jains were considering a part of hill as their pilgrim, dispute arose when Raja of Palganj was exercising his right over shrines even to the exclusion of the Jains. During the British Rule, a Military Sanatorium was proposed to be constructed over the Parasnath hill after taking permission from the Raja which caused annoyance to Swetamber Jains who are the richer class amongst the Jain Communities although Swetamberies and Raja of Palganj were earlier maintaining good relations in respect of upliftmcnt and maintenance of pilgrims but since after the set up of Military Sanatorium, the relationship started worsening and Swetambari Jains started raising objection as the same would hurt their religious sentiments as the site for construction of Sanatorium was fixed within the hill in 1859 when the estate of Raja of Palganj was under the Court of Wards. In January, 1860, Sir Peter Grant, Lt. Governor of Bengal inspected the hill accompanied by some higher officials. In the meeting, Swetambaries were also present and the site was selected on the western range which was devoid of any shrines and was remote from the pilgrims considered by the Jains. The objection raised at the very first instance of the setting up of Military Sanatorium in the hill was given up ultimately and the Sanatorium continued for about four years and then abandoned in the year 1868 for local disadvantages in spite of its beauty and other effectiveness and the main building was made over to P.W.D. and the other parts were sold to Raja.

34. In the plaint of Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and also in the Written Statement in Title Suit No. 23 of 1968 the Swetambers have stated that the plaintiffs, Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust was the owner and was in possession of the Parasnath hill comprising an area of 16 thousand acres including the temples, tonks, shrines etc. having purchased the same from Raja of Palganj by a sale deed dated 9-3-1918, as statede earlier. By such purchase, according to the plaintiffs, whatever right subsisted with Raja of Palganj have been vested in the plaintiffs and when moity was claimed by Raja of Nawagarh, the same was also acquired by the plaintiffs by way of lease granted in their favour by Raja of Nawagarh in 1918 itself. It is their further contention that by various judgments in the litigations, as stated earlier, the Swetambers who are represented by the plaintiffs have acquired right and possession over the whole of Parasnath hill and the Digambers had only the limited right of worship of their Charans and Jatmandirs. The pilgrrims of Digambers can only stay in the Dharamshala and the rest house with the permission of Swetambers and by the last judgment in the Injunction case, the limited rights of Digambars have been specifically defined and after that judgment the Digambers had got no rights in the hill except that of right of performing their rites and rituals in the charans and four Thirtankars and Jalmandirs. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the claim of the State of Bihar of vesting of Parasnath hill by Notification under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 bearing No. 155/LR/ZAN dated 2nd May, 1953 declaring that the Estate of Parasnath hill having Tou/i No. 20/1 had passed to and vested in the Stale of Bihar was totally illegal and improper and not in accordance with law as there was no publication in two Newspapers which was mandatory as per the provisions of Bihar Land Reformes Act and when the Parasnath hill has got the characteristic of religious nature the same cannot be vested to the State of Bihar and after the agreement was arrived at in the year 1965 between the State of Bihar and the Swetamber Murtipujak Jain Community represented by plaintiffs i.e. Sheth Anandji Kalyanji trust, there remained no scope of the Stale of Bihar to claim again the right of vesting of the Parasnath Hill.

79. Mr. Bacchawat further submits that Parasnath Hill has no nexus with the agriculture tenure holder rather the whole Hill is only a sacred place and a place of worship to the Jain community as a whole being managed and controlled by Swetambers since the time immemorial. According to Swetambers, Parasnath Hill was never used for agriculture or horticulture or for such other purpose hence Parasnath Hill does not come within the meaning of the estate as per the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Regarding agrarian policy of vesting, he has referred to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 661 and AIR 1967 SC 1110 (State of U.P. v. Raja Anand Brahma) and (Gulabbhai Vallabhbhai Desai v, Union of India), which mainly dealt with the policy and preamble of the Act. but what would vest under the Bihar Land Reforms Act has been decided by a judgment of this Court as reported in AIR 1957 Patna 226 (FB) (Sheo Narayan Choudhary v. State of Bihar) and also by a Full Bench decision of this Court in 1958 BLJR 559 : (AIR 1958 Patna 630) (Mahant Sukhdeo Das v. K.P. Tiwary). The primary object of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is to abolish the Zamindary by acquiring the interests of the proprietors, tenure-holders, under-tenure holders and trustees which have been compendiously described as intermediaries in the Act, in other words, the intervening interests of all persons below the paramount authority, namely, the State and above the tillers of the soil. It was further observed that not only the agricultural land or ancillary thereto, but all the intermediary interests within the land shall be vested. A Division Bench of this Court has further held in 1953 BLJR 84 : (AIR 1953 Patna 630) (Jwala Dutt Gobind Ram v. Union of India Railway Department) that all the properties held by trustees for religious and charitable purposes also vest under the Bihar Land Reforms Act to the, State, even the land held by the Defence of India does also come within the purview of the definition of the Estate. While the notifications are being issued under the Act, those lands held by Defence of India can never be kept out from the definition of the estate for the purpose of vesting. Moreover, mouza Parasnath Hill of Touzi No. 20/1 does not, (a) only consist of temples, shrines and Dharmshala in the limited area of the Hill which stands recorded under Khewat No. 7, Khata No. 84 measuring 0.86 acre rather it consists of other lands also such as, (b) forests and waste land covering thirteen thousand acres recorded under Khewat No. 1, (c) four Adivasi villages or hamlets, (d) Dakbungalow now belonging to P.W.D. recorded in Khewat No. 8 in the name of the Secretary of State for India, (e) Bharaghar (refreshment home), (f) tea plantations, residential quarters and servant quarters recorded in the name of the then owner under separate khewat, (g) raiyati agricultural lands of Adibasies, (h) lands belonging to Jharia Water Board, (i) roads and pathways belonging to State Government with rights of user of the Jains. These have been mentioned in various previous judgments. Thus the Parasnath Hill was never consisted of only temples and shrines. It had various types and categories of lands including agricultural land. Thus, it cannot be said that there being no agricultural land within the Parasnath Hill and as such no question of its vesting under the scope of Bihar Land Reforms Act. has got no legs to stand. Moreover, it has also come in evidence that after the vesting, Adibasies in the neighbouring villages of the forest land had prayed by application before the State Government for release of the agricultural lands in their favour and the Government had also done so by acceding, to their .prayers. When all lands including trust lands, lands of mosque or temples, hats, bazars are within the definition of estate as per the Act on various pronouncements of this Court as referred above and hence not outside the scope of vesting and in that sense, it cannot be said that Bihar Reforms Act is not applicable for the purpose of vesting in respect of Parasnath Hill.

The validity of the agreement was challenged by the Digambars not only in their written statement filed in the suit of the Swetambars but also in their own suit. Accordingly to Mr. R.K. Jain when the agreement itself is against the public policy and against statutory laws of the land, there is no scope of reliance on such document to give any relief in favour of Swetambars.

166. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed in his judgment regarding validity of the agreement that Article 299 of the Constitution of India would come into play in not debarring the Government to enter into such an agreement and the contents of the agreement (Ext.9/A) would reveal as to why the Government considered it necessary for entering into such agreement. The learned Subordinate Judge further observed that the Government was anxious and condous (conscious) and considered the fact that the whole of the Parasnath Hill was holy place and of religious importance for the Jain Community as a whole and as such the Government was very interested to bring the forests of the Parasnath Hill under its management and control for its development and improvement, but in view of Section 4(f) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Government could not have taken charge of the Hill as a whole as it was admittedly a property of the Trust and it was for these reasons, the Government entered into the agreement of 1965. to take the charge of forest area of Parasnath Hill to gel it managed by ils Forest Department. Further, the learned Court below held that in view of the powers conferred under Article 299 of the Constitution of India, the Stale Government did not enter into me agreement on colourable exercise of power, rather knowing fully well that it had been vested under the Bihar Land Reforms Ad hut actually no possession could he taken and because of the sentiments of Jain Community being at stake the agreement was further necessary to be entered into. In consideration of the agreement, the learned Sub Judge has referred to Section 13 of the B.L.R. Act and provisions related to payment of compensation in respect of vested estates. Section 13 emphasizes that all estates and tenures which vested in the State should be managed according to the Rules in force for the management of the Government estates and as such according to the learned Sub Judge, Parasnath Hill being not an ordinary estate but keeping in view of its religious sanctity and sentiments of the Jain Community, estate of Parasnath Hill requires special kind of management and. therefore, the agreement for the management specified in the agreement is not in any way violative of Section 30, although one of the terms of the agreement regarding 60/40 share of the forest produces had been struck down being not legally admissible under the law as there was only annuity in question.