NARBDESHWAR MAHADEV MANDIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing order dated 4.5.1989, contained in annexure '1', whereby a direction has been given for making final publication of the draft statement prepared under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'), final publication made under Section 11 of the Act, Gazette Notification published under Section 15 of the Act, contained in Annexure '3' order dated 14.9.1992, contained in Annexure '2' and resolution dated 20.3.93 contained in Annexure '5', confirming the aforesaid order contained in Annexure '1'.

(2.) It appears that a proceeding was started for acquisition of surplus land against the Petitioner, which is a temple and it was found that the total land held by the temple is 51.82 acres, out of which land of 43.12 acres was class I land and land of 8.70 acres was of class IV land. From the order contained in annexure '1', it appears that out of 51.82 acres of land, land of 1.41 acres was exempted and land of 50.41 acres was declared surplus Against the said order, when an appeal was taken the District Collector upheld the same Thereafter a revision application was preferred by the Petitioner and the revisional authority by its order, contained in annexure '5', has confirmed the aforesaid order and dismissed the revision application. Hence this application.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that by patta executed on 22.7.1948 the aforesaid land was settled with the deity in question and since that day the deity being a juristic person coming in possession of the same. Therefore one unit ought to have been granted in four of the deity, but the authorities were not justified in not granting even one unit to the deity. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, stated that is view of the aforesaid statement that the patta was executed in favour of the deity, he was not in a position to dispute the point raised on be half of the Petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the authorities were not justified is not granting even one unit to the deity.