Ram Janki Mandir And Others vs The Commissioner And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15455 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107801
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 7
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1425 of 1996
 
Petitioner :- Ram Janki Mandir And Others
 
Respondent :- The Commissioner And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Misra,H.S.N. Tripathi,K. Shahi,Neeraj Tripathi,P.S. Tripathi,Sankatha Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,Gautam Chaudhary
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1426 of 1996
 
Petitioner :- Baleshwar And Others
 
Respondent :- The Commissioner And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Mishra,K.Shahi,Neeraj Tripathi,Parvez Alam,Sankatha Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Srivastava,Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,S.C. Gupta,T.B.Islam
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1467 of 1996
 
Petitioner :- Sarvajeet Bahadur Shahi And Others
 
Respondent :- The Commissioner And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Misra,H.S.N.Tripathi,K R Singh,K.Shahi,Neeraj Tripathi,P.S.Tripathi,Sankatha Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,T.B. Islam
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. These three connected writ petition arise out of the judgment and order dated 26.12.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur (Appellate Authority under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1961) and order dated 23.03.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector, Deoria.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1996, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996, are that one Smt. Paramjota Kunwar w/o Shri Narayan Prasad Shahi had dedicated the land in question during her life time measuring 11.53 acres to Ram Janki Temple, land measuring 4.05 acres in favour of Hanuman Ji Temple and land measuring 11.27 acres in favour of Radha Krishna Temple prior to 01.05.1959. The aforesaid three sets of land were dedicated to the Deity.

3. Pursuant to the land dedicated to Deity necessary revenue entries were made in the khatauni of Ram Janki Temple and Hanuman Ji Temple in the fasli year 1372-1374. Later on a registered deed of dedication was executed by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar in the month of January 1972. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred as the 'Ceiling Act') was issued. Smt. Paramjota Kunwar filed her objections stating therein that she had dedicated the land belonging to her in three temples namely Ram Janki Temple, Hanuman Ji Temple and Radha Krishna Temple. The plots mentioned in the notice were in possession of three temples and their produces to be utilized by the temples. Notices were also issued to three temples and objections were filed on behalf of temples also.

4. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 31.07.19775 dismissed the objections filed by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar as well as the temples and declared the area of 7.64 acres of land as surplus. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, an Appeal No. 447 of 1976 was filed by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar and another appeal being Appeal No. 448 of 1976 was filed by the temple. Both the appeals were clubbed together and decided by common judgment dated 05.08.1978. The appeals were allowed holding therein that 26.85 acres of land were dedicated by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar to three temples much before 01.05.1959 and no land can be declared as surplus.

5. Against the judgment of appellate authority a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 682 of 1979 was filed before this Court by the State. The said petition was dismissed on 25.04.1980. Against the order of this Court no special leave petition was preferred by the State before the Apex Court. In the meantime, Smt. Paramjota Kunwar died and her rights were inherited by her two sons namely Sarvajeet Bahadur Shahi, Ranjit Bahadur Shahi and Lalli Kunwar widow of predeceased son Harjeet Bahadur Shahi. Fresh notices were issued to the legal heirs and representatives of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar. During pendency of notices issued to the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar, petitioner nos. 1 to 6 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 came to know that their bhumidhari plot nos. 841 and 915 situated in village Bariyapur were treated to be holdings of Sarvajeet Bahadur Shahi. Petitioner nos. 1 to 6 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 filed their impleadment application alongwith objections on 15.05.1987.

6. Similarly, petitioner no. 7 and Bechu Lal, predecessor of petitioner nos. 8 to 11 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 also came to know that their holdings were treated as holdings of Sarvajeet Bahadur Shahi, filed their impleadment and objections on 20.02.1982. The impleadment applications were allowed by the Prescribed Authority and their objections were kept on record.

7. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections filed by three temples as well as the objections of the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar and the objections filed by writ petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 and by a composite order dated 23.03.1992 the Prescribed Authority held 84.66 acres of land of petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996 as surplus. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, three temples filed Appeal No. 94/29/D/1992, legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar filed Appeal No. 93/28/D/1992, Appeal No. 95/30/D/1992, Appeal No. 96/31/D/1992 and Appeal No. 97/223/247/76/D/1992 while the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 filed appeal being Appeal No. 91/26/D/1992 and Appeal No. 92/27/D/1992 before the appellate Court. All the appeals were clubbed together and were decided by a common order. The appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 26.12.1995 dismissed all the appeals. Hence the present writ petitions.

8. Sri K. Sahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all three writ petitions, submitted that Smt. Paramjota Kunwar had dedicated all the land belonging to her to three temples total area measuring 26.85 acres. No land was left with the tenure holder which was dedicated to the temple prior to 01.05.1959. According to him, the revenue entries were made in the revenue records between the period 1965 to 1967. As a precautionary measure the deed of dedication was executed in the month of January 1972 to avoid future complications. According to learned counsel the proceedings which were launched by issuance of notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act in the year 1976 were set aside by the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 05.08.1978 and the said order was confirmed by this Court on 25.04.1980. The said order passed by this Court was never challenged by the State before the higher Court.

9. According to him, once the proceedings were finalized no occasion arose for reopening of the matter by issuance of fresh notice for the same set of land holding it to be the land of legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar. Moreover, the notice issued to the writ petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 was also against the material on record as they were already recorded bhumidhar prior to the year 1959 and their land has been wrongly clubbed with that of petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996.

10. According to him, the finding recorded that as the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar were sarvarakars of the endowment by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar, hence, the exemption granted under Section 6 (f) would not be available is totally against the material on record. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Prakash Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority Bilaspur and another, 1985 All. L.J. 1351 and judgment of Apex Court in case of Raizur Rehman Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 2 SCC 248.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the endowment deed which was executed by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar in the month of January 1972 is against the provisions of Section 5 (1) read with Section 5 (6) of the Ceiling Act and any transfer made of land after 24th day of January 1971 was to be ignored. According to him, the exemption under Section 6 (f) cannot be granted to the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996 as the transaction is sham and just to place the case out of zone of consideration of ceiling, such deed was executed.

12. He then contended that the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996 are the sarvarakars of the land which is alleged to have been dedicated to the temples and are taking benefits arising out of the land and, thus, the land cannot be exempted from the Ceiling Act.

13. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

14. The short controversy engaging the attention of the Court as to whether the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996 can be extended the benefit of Section 6 (f) of the Ceiling Act, and whether the land of petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 can be clubbed into the land of petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1996 for being declared the land as surplus.

15. It is not in dispute that Smt. Paramjota Kunwar was initially the tenure holder of the land in dispute. After the death of eldest son she had endowed the entire land to the temples and three temples were constructed by her being Ram Janki Temple, Hanuman Ji Temple and Radha Krishna Temple. Thirteen plots of land measuring 11.53 acres were endowed by her during her lifetime to Ram Janki Temple. Similarly, five plots total area 4.05 acres were dedicated to Hanuman Ji Temple and similarly fourteen different plots total area 11.72 acres were dedicated to Radha Krishna Temple.

16. It was during her lifetime that proceedings for declaring the land surplus was initiated and notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority in the year 1976. The said notice was contested by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar by filing objections, and an area of 7.64 acres of land was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority. Against the order of Prescribed Authority, an appeal was preferred not only by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar but also by three temples. All the appeals were allowed on 05.08.1978 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside. Against the order of appellate Court, the State filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 25.04.1980 and the order of the appellate Court became final.

17. Subsequent proceedings initiated by ceiling authorities by issuance of notice in the year 1982 and, thereafter, in the year 1986 not only to the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar but also to three temples and petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996 for the same set of land was not maintainable as the matter relating to the land of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar was settled by this Court vide judgment dated 25.04.1980, against which no further proceedings were launched before the higher forum by the State authorities.

18. Once the land was settled with three temples, and finding was recorded by the appellate Court to the extent that the dedication/endowment was made by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar prior to 01.05.1959 and the revenue entries having been made in the revenue records between the year 1965 to 1967, and the finding of the appellate Court having been confirmed by this Court, the Prescribed Authority was not justified in rejecting the objections moved by the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar and petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1996.

19. The finding recorded by both the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority to the extent that the deed of dedication was executed in the month of January 1972 i.e. after cut off date of 24.01.1971 is patently wrong as in the earlier round of ceiling proceedings the matter relating to the dedication of land by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar stood settled and it was held that the dedication/endowment of land to three temples was made prior to 01.05.1959 and the revenue entries having been made between the year 1965 to 1967, only the deed of dedication was jotted down in the year 1972 will not attract the wrath of the Ceiling Act and the land cannot be declared surplus.

20. Moreover, Section 6 (f) provides for the exemption of certain land from imposition of ceiling. According to it land land held prior to 01.05.1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqfs, trust, endowment, or institution the income from which is wholly utilized for religious or charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settler or members of his family or his descendants.

21. In the instant case, Smt. Paramjota Kunwar had endowed her entire land to three temples i.e. Ram Janki Temple, Hanuman Ji Temple and Radha Krishna Temple. The dedication to the temples was complete and it was not for the benefit either in part or whole for the settler or members of her family or her descendants. The State authorities were under an obligation to prove that the income which arose from the land endowed to three temples was being utilized either by the settlers or members of her family or her descendants.

22. It has been a specific case that not only Smt. Paramjota Kunwar, in the earlier round of contest, but also all the legal heirs that the income from the said land is not being used by any of them. No finding has been recorded either by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate authority that the income which accrues from the land endowed to the temple is being used by legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar. Only challenge made by the State is that two sons and daughter-in-law of predeceased son of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar are managing the aforesaid three temples, this finding would not lead to a conclusion that dedication/endowment was made by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar for the benefit of the settlers, or her family members or the descendants.

23. The concept of endowment under the Hindu Law is that the property is endowed completely to the Deity or temple. Once the endowment is complete and the finding has been recorded by the appellate Court in the year 1978 in first round of proceedings, which was confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 25.04.1980, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court was not correct to take other view and hold the land which was endowed to the temples to be surplus land, treating it to be the land of the legal heirs of Smt. Paramjota Kunwar.

24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that both the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court fell into trap that the exemption as provided under Section 6 (f) of the Ceiling Act could not be extended to the petitioners as endowment made by Smt. Paramjota Kunwar was for the benefit of the settlers, or her family members or descendants.

25. On due consideration of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.12.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and order dated 23.03.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Collector, Deoria, are hereby quashed and set-aside.

26. Writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 17.5.2023

Shekhar