Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In W.P.(C) No.4975 of 2008, the prayer is made for direction upon the respondents to settle Revenue Dak Bungalow situated on Parasnath hill in the name of the petitioner for use as Guest House for Jain pilgrims/devotees as the request for extension of lease, made in compliance of order passed by a larger Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.332 of 1997(R) and 5 other analogous matters.

4. In W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008, the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2008 contained in Memo No.3926 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, whereby and whereunder the Revenue Dak Bungalow situated in the hills of Parasnath temple, which was till date settled in the name of the petitioner for use as Guest House for Jain pilgrims/devotees, has now been settled in the name of private respondent no.7.

"69. Coming to the appeal filed by the Digambaris, it is seen that the relief claimed by them in Title Suit No.23 of 1968, in addition to the declaration that Ext. 9(a) agreement entered into by Anandji Kalyanji and the State is void, are a mandatory injunction directing Anandji Kalyanji to demolish some new constructions sought to be put up by it and a permanent injunction restraining Anandji Kalyanji from making any further construction in Parasnath Hill for a declaration that the Digambaris are entitled to construct a dharamshala or a Rest House on the Parasnath Hill and restraining Anandji Kalyanji from interfering with the Digambars from enforcing any of their rights over the Hill. The Trial Court, -- though it substantially dismissed the suit, -
-observed that Digambaris were justified in trying to put up a dharamshala for the convenience of the Digambar Jain pilgrims, but in view of the fact that the right to the Hill vested in Anandji Kalyanji, what the Digambaris could do was to put up the constructions only with the permission of Anandji Kalyanji. The Trial Court practically directed Anandji Kalyanji to grant such permission if it was applied for by Digambars. The learned single Judge rejected the claim for the relief since it was conceded by the senior counsel on behalf of the Digambaris that if Ext. 9(a) agreement was found void, equally, the Court had to find that the agreement D/1 entered into by the Digambaris with the Government was also void. In the light of this, we are not satisfied that a case for further relief has been made out by the Digambaris. But at the same time, it is clear that the unfettered right of Digambars to worship in 20 tonks, charans and the temple of Gautam Swamy, cannot in any manner be interfered with by Anandji Kalyanji representing the Murti Pujak Community of India. That right of the Digambaris are liable to be protected. But we are not inclined to disturb the refusal by the learned single Judge of not granting any other relief to the Digambaris than the one granted to them by the Trial Court. But in view of the finding that Anandji Kalyanji has no subsisting right over the Parasnath Hill in view of the vesting under the Land Reforms Act, the condition imposed by the Trial Court that permission of Anandji Kalyanji was necessary for construction of a dharamshala cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge, consisting with his finding should have modified this part of the decree. We hold that the Digambaris could put up a dharamshala not in consisting with the mode of their worship, only with the permission of the Government in whom the land has vested. Of course, now that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has also intervened, no construction can be put up in the With ( 2026:JHHC:10801 ) Parasnath Hill forest, without the prior consent of the Central Government as envisaged by Section 2 of the Conservation Act. Thisclarification alone is warranted in the suit filed by the Digambaris in addition to the relief already granted by the single Judge and which we have confirmed.
71. Considering that the places of worship on top of the Parasnath Hill have been the subject of prolonged litigation between the two sects of Jains, it appears to us to be necessary to direct the State to make the necessary arrangements for the proper up keep and maintenance of the places of worship and also for providing reasonable amenities to the pilgrims to the Hill. Since the entire land other than 0.86 acres in Khewat No. 7 had vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State has an obligation not only to pay compensation for the lands vested in the State under the Act, but also an obligation to ensure that the places of worship comprising0.86 acres of land are properly maintained, administered and looked after. We think that it would be in the interests of all concerned, if we direct the State of Jharkhand which has come in, in the place of the State of Bihar to constitute a body for the proper management of the places of worship in Khewat 7 and the extent of46.28 acres which was earlier considered necessary for the purposes of the places of worship. We may notice here that there is nothing to show that the Raja of Palganj had any title over the shrines, tonks and charans located in 0.86 acres in Khewat No. 7 and the Raja did not pretend to sell that extent or those structures to Anandji Kalyanji when he executed Ext. 7 sale deed in the year 1918. In that situation. It is difficult to find that the title to 0.86 acres vested in Anandji Kalyanji. The title over the rest of the property had vested in the State in terms of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It is in that context that the State has the obligation to make arrangements for the convenience of the pilgrims consistent with the mode of worship in the shrines and without affecting the religious sentiments of the Jain Community as a whole."