RAM KISHUN Vs. NIRANJAN PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having listened to the argument which is just concluded, I come to a very clear decision in this case. The matter to be determined arises in an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. There appears to have been a plot No. 69 which the Government sought to acquire under the Act, the plot being situate in Patna City. On one corner of the plot it is admitted that a temple for worship was built. On representations made to the authorities that part of the plot upon which the temple was built was excluded from the acquisition, but there remained the other part of the plot .030 acres in extent which in fact was acquired. Compensation was made to the extent of Rs. 1,825, and it is with regard to that compensation that this dispute arises. On the one hand, Ram Kishun and others purporting to represent the Hindu community claimed the sum as trust money: on the other hand, Niranjan Pande claimed the compensation as being given in respect of property which was his own personal property under a deed of gift by his uncle dated 10 August 1925.

(2.) There is no dispute in the case that the uncle of Niranjan Pande, one Makund Pande, was the shebait of the temple of which I have spoken, and the real dispute in the case is whether there was a dedication not only of the temple itself for public worship but whether the, whole plot No. 69 was likewise dedicated to the public uses. The evidence in the case is of an equivocal character. There is no deed of dedication in respect of the temple itself and had we to determine the question of whether there had been a dedication of temple we might find ourselves in very considerable difficulty; but that there was a public dedication of the temple there can, in the circumstances of the case, be no dispute. As regards the remainder of the plot, as I have already stated, the evidence which has been adduced on both sides is of an equivocal character. It is true that some witnesses came to state that they had subscribed sums of money for the purpose of building a temple and for general purposes of the dedication.

(3.) But that evidence accepted as it is by the learned District Judge, does not dispose of the question as to what was the extent of the dedication. I should have stated that this plot, if my memory serves me, was surrounded by a wall. There were two rooms inside the courtyard, there was a verandah, there was a door leading from, the street into the temple and from the temple into the courtyard. In the verandah of the two rooms was installed the idol of Mahabirji. So far as the evidence with regard to this idol is concerned, it is stated on the one hand that the Hindu community worshipped the idol and had access to the verandah as of right: on the other, it is contended that--and there is evidence to that effect--the access of the public for the purpose of worship of that idol was allowed only by the leave and license of the shebait.