BAMESHWAR PANDA Vs. SATRUHAN PRASAD SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rule was issued by the High Court on application of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the opposite party, to show cause why a writ should not be issued quashing the order dated the 14th November, 1953, passed by the then President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, the predecessor of opposite party No. 1, under Section 33 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, (Bihar Act I of 1951), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", accepting opposite party No. 3, Rani Sonawati Kumari, as tile trustee and shebait of the Basukinath temple and its properties, in the district of Dumka.

(2.) It appears that when the Board, under the Act, began to function, it issued notices under Section 59 of the Act to Bameshwar Panda, petitioner No. 1, who is the Sardar Panda of Basukinath temple, and, to one Hari Prasad Kumar, who was the receiver of the Handwe Estate, of which opposite party No, 3 was the proprietress. The notice against petitioner No. 1 was served on the 28th January, 1953, while the notice against the receiver was served on the 18th February, 1953. The Receiver on the. 23rd February, 1953 replied that he had got no concern with the temple and its properties in question, and, that they were solely in possession of Rani Sonawati Kumari, opposite party No. 3. The office of the President of the Board, thereafter, did not take any action on the letter received from the Receiver, and, therefore, did not write any letter, or send any notice to opposite party No. 3.

(3.) Petitioner No. 1, however, filed a return, as required by the notice under Section 59 of the Act, and, the accounts filed by him were accepted by the Board on the 15th February, 1953. After, receipt of the return under Section 59, assessment under Section 70 (2) (a) of the Act was made by the authority concerned on the 2nd June, 1953, against petitioner No. 1. This assessment was subsequently transferred in the name of petitioner No. 2, who was looking after, and managing the temple and its affairs, owing to the old age of petitioner No. 1, On the 31st July, 1953, the petitioners also paid Rs. 51/-out of the amount of the fee assessed as required by Section 70 (1) of the Act.