RADHE GOVINDJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents State of Bihar and its officials of pay the annuity to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 9, 704.23 annually with effect from 1954 on account of vesting of Tauzi Nos. 6155 and 3189 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

(2.) THE short relevant facts are that the petitioners No. l and 2 are deities installed in the temple and the petitioner No.3 claimed to be the Shebait of the deity. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner No.3 endowed the said two Tauzis fetching an income of Rs. 18, 000/- per year as expenses towards Bhograg, upkeep of the temple, performance of Utsav (ceremonies) connected with the deities and management of the properties, etc. It is also not indispute that the said two Tauzis vested in the State of Bihar as per provisions of the Binar Land Reforms Act and the landlord was entitled for compensation for which a Compensation Case No. 7 of 1955-67 was initiated by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bhagalpur for determination of the amount of annuity payable to the petitioners. THE Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur, on enquiry, had recommended to the Government to recognize the trust as genuine and, further, for payment of annuity at the aforesaid rate from 1954, i.e., the year of vesting. It is stated that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, also wrote in this connection to the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur, vide letter dated 13.2.1985, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1, for, grant of approval of a yearly annuity. THEreafter, the Additional Collector issued public notice but, in spite of expiry of due date, no payment was made on the ground of want of allotment of fund from the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar. THE petitioners represented before the Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur to send the file to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur to enable payment of annuity. However, in the meantime, it appears that a complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as a result of which payment was withheld.

(3.) IN this regard Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in paragraph 18 of the writ application wherein it has been stated that (he Additional Sub-Judge, Bhagalpur, in the suit filed by the Board held that the trust in question was a private trust and as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board preferred appeal against the same in the High Court vide Misc. Appeal No. 5/68 which was dismissed on 17.4.78.