RAM JANKI JI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a land ceiling case initiated against the deities, petitioners I and 2 herein, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, allowed two units of land to the deities and declared 5 acres of land as excess. The collector however, held that the deities were entitled to only one unit. Accordingly, he ordered for publication under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). On revision, the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissed the revision application on the ground of limitation as well. The orders of the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue, are Annexures-3 and 4, respectively, which have been challenged in this writ application.

(2.) One Mahanth Sukhram Das had executed two registered deeds of dedication in December, 1950, dedicating the landed properties to the deities Ram Janki Ji (petitioner No. 1) and Raja Rani (petitioner No. 2). They were separately given the landed properties to the extent of 81.14 acres of land and were put in possession over the same through their shebaits. A true copy each of Samarpannamas has been annexed marked Annexures-`1 and 1/A to this application. After the death of the said Mahanth Sukhram Das, petitioner No. 3 became the Shebait of both the deities. A land ceiling proceeding has started in the year 1976-77. The properties of the Math are registered with the Religious Trust Board and the same are under the control and guidance of the said Board. On local inspection by the authorities of the State Government, it was found that there are two temples one of Ram Janki Ji and another of Raja Rani. The two temples are situated on an area of 2.81 acres of land on the basis of the enquiry report, the Deputy Collector, Land reforms by his order dated the 18/11/1976, allowed two units to the deities on the ground that there are two temples to whom the lands were gifted by means of two separate registered deeds of Samarpannamas.

(3.) The learned Collector while hearing the case under Section 29 of the Act, held that, after receipt of the notice under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act the Secretary of the Committee constituted by the Board of Religious Trust, namely, Shri Ramashray Pd. Singh appeared before him on 25-4-1977 and prayed for time. Thereafter he remained absent and did not produce any paper in the court on the date fixed, i.e. on 16-8-1977. In view of the continuous absence, the case was adjourned for ex parte order. The learned Collector held that mere existence of two temples cannot be a ground for allowing two separate units under the Act. The entire properties donated to the two deities are being managed by a committee formed under the direction of the Religious Trust Board. Even before the formation of the committee, the entire property was being managed by one man. There is no evidence on the record to show that the properties donated to the deities are to be managed separately having separate accounts. The learned Collector, therefore, did not find any reason to recommend for exemption under Section 5 of the Act held that the Trust is entitled to one unit only. The Additional Collector was, accordingly, requested to take action under Section 10(2) of the Act.