MAHANTH PARICHHAN DAS Vs. HARGOBIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, Mahant Parichhan Das, has moved this Court for a writ, in the nature of certiorari under Article 226, of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings drawn by respondents 1 and 2 under the Bihar Religious Trusts Act (Bihar Act I of 1951).

(2.) The petitioner states that in village Dumri the father of one Gulab Singh had erect-ed a temple and after his death Gulab Singh came in possession of the temple. Gulab Singh later on became Bairagi and was known as Gulab. Das and after his death his chela Brahmdas came in possession of the properties. In survey record of rights all the properties', were recorded as belonging to Brahmdas. It is alleged that on 1st November 1918 Sant Das, successor of Brahmdas, executed a will in favour of Gena Das. Gena Das in his turn gave, all the properties to Bajrang Das by a will dated 10th of February 1926 and Bajrang Das gave all the properties to the petitioner by a will dated 21st of July 1937. The petitioner further alleged that in the year 1944 there was a proceeding under Section 5 of the Religious Endowments Act (Act XX of 1863) & it was held by the District Judge in that proceeding "that the Asthal was not a religious, "institution of public character and the trust was not for public purpose. The case of the petitioner is that the properties are his private properties over which he has absolute title and there is no trust, either express or constructive, with respect to these properties. The petitioner alleges in the first place that Bihar Act I of 1951 is unconstitutional as it violates the guarantees under Articles 19(1) (f), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, the submission of the petitioner is that the Act has no application to his case and the proceedings started under the Act are without jurisdiction.

(3.) There is an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in this case. It is stated in this affidavit that Dumri Asthal is a public Asthal and the properties are trust properties. It is also said that Gulab Singh of village Pokhirbhinda had donated lands to the Asthal and that one Suraj Singh of Mahedeo Darbar had also donated 5 bighas of lands to Goddess Janki and that some land had also been donat-ed, by Brahmdas and Bhekhadhari Das. In para 10 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the people of the locality go to the temple to celebrate, 'Samayas' and also subscribe towards the expenses of these Samayas. It is further alleged that the proceeding under Section 5 of the Religious Trusts Act was a collusive proceeding and judgment was obtained by the petitioned in collusion with one Baijnath Singh for the purpose of getting a declaration that, the properties were not trust properties.