RATNESH MANI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7715 of 2009 whereby he imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant holding that he filed a frivolous complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari against Respondent No. 5 Dr. Ashutosh Sharan.

(2.) It would appear from the pleadings of the parties that way back in the year 1930 about 19 Kathas 4 Dhurs of land was transferred by Motihari Concerned Limited to one Khem Chand Lal by registered sale deed. In 1943, 19 Kathas 4 Dhurs of land was sold by the said Khem Chand Lal to one Narsingh Das Kejaria. The family of Narsingh Das Kejaria established Shiv Temple on a part of the said land and formed a family trust for the management of the temple. In course of time, the original trustees died and time to time new trust was drawn up. Only the mem-bers of Kejaria family were trustees of the Shiv temple trust. In 1991 the family realized that it was getting difficult to maintain Shiv temple and for upkeep of the same and running of the trust, it was necessary to dispose of part of the land. In September, 1991 trustees sold 45 Dhurs of land to Respondent No. 5 by registered sale deed. Soon thereafter the Bihar Religious Trust Board issued notice to Respondent No. 5 claiming the trust to be public trust. The Respondent No. 5 challenged the notice before this Court by way of writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1961 of 1991. In course of proceeding the Religious Trust Board finally submitted to the court that on enquiry it was found that the trust in question was not a Public Trust and accordingly de-notified the same as being not a public trust. In view of the stand of the Religious Trust Board, the writ petition was withdrawn on 28.8.2004. However, the problem of Respondent No. 5 did not end there. The Appellant filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Motihari, East Champaran stating therein that public land is unauthorisedly being sold by the trustee to the Respondent No. 5 and the latter has started construction with-out sanction of law. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued notice to Respondent No. 5 who contested the claim of the Appellant.

(3.) The stand of the purchaser (Respondent No. 5) was that land in question would not be a public land in view of Section 2(3) of the Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, which runs as under.