[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4975 of 2008
Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetra Committee, a Society
registered under the Indian Societies Act, 1860, having its Registered
Office at Hirabag, C.P. Tank, Mumbai-400004 and Branch Office at Kund
Kund Marg, Madhuban, P.O. Sjhikharjee, District- Giridih-825329,
through its Vice President Vasant Lal M. Doshi, resident of 139A,
Bhuleshwar Road, Mumbai-400002 ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue &
Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag
3. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
4. Additional Collector, Giridih
5. Circle Officer, Pirtanr, P.O. & P.S. Pirtand, District- Giridih
... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 5920 of 2008
Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetra Committee, a Society
registered under the Indian Societies Act, 1860, having its Registered
Office at Hirabag, C.P. Tank, Mumbai-400004 and Branch Office at Kund
Kund Marg, Madhuban, P.O. Sjhikharjee, District- Giridih-825329,
through its Vice President Vasant Lal M. Doshi, resident of 139A,
Bhuleshwar Road, Mumbai-400002 (Maharashtra) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue &
Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue & Land
Reforms, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag
4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
5. Additional Collector, Giridih
6. Circle Officer, Pirtanr, P.O. & P.S. Pirtand, District- Giridih
7. Shri Ajay Tutu, s/o not known to the petitioner, President, Marang Buru
Sansthan, resident of Giridih Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (In both cases)
For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II (In W.P.C.-4975/08)
Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to S.C.-II
Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)
(In W.P.C.-5920/08)
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, A.C. to Mr. Saurav Arun, Adv.
(In W.P.C.-5920/08)
-----
07/16.04.2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat
Kumar and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State and Mr.
Bhanu Kumar No.1, learned counsel for respondent no.7.
2. Both these writ petitions have already been tagged considering that
the prayers made in the writ petitions are interlinked and the petitioner is
same in both the writ petitions.
3. In W.P.(C) No.4975 of 2008, the prayer is made for direction upon the
respondents to settle Revenue Dak Bungalow situated on Parasnath hill in the
name of the petitioner for use as Guest House for Jain pilgrims/devotees as
the request for extension of lease, made in compliance of order passed by a
larger Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.332 of 1997(R) and 5 other analogous
matters.
4. In W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008, the prayer is made for quashing of the
order dated 29.11.2008 contained in Memo No.3926 passed by
respondent no.2-Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand,
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, whereby and whereunder the
Revenue Dak Bungalow situated in the hills of Parasnath temple, which was
till date settled in the name of the petitioner for use as Guest House for
Jain pilgrims/devotees, has now been settled in the name of private
respondent no.7.
5. At the outset, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the State in W.P.(C) No.4975 of 2008
and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State in W.P.(C) No.
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
5920 of 2008 jointly submit that these matters can be disposed of as status
quo in terms of the earlier order is already being maintained by the State and
all facilities are being provided by the State to the pilgrims/devotees in
Parasnath.
6. Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for
the State next submit that further the judgment passed by the Full Bench of
this Court in L.P.A. No.332 of 1997(R) has been taken before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, however, no stay has been granted in S.L.P. (Civil) No.3029-
3034 of 2005. They also submit that since there is no stay in the said
S.L.P., the matters can be disposed of in light of paragraph 71 of the
judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court as the observations made
in that paragraph are being fulfilled by the State till date and that has also
been stated in the counter affidavits filed by the respondent-State in
respective cases.
7. Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7
in W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008 submits that in view of the order passed by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court in Contempt (Civil) Case No.2 of 2009,
restoration of the said Dak Bungalow has already been made in favour
of the petitioner. He further submits that he has got no instruction as
to whether respondent no.7 moved before the higher Court or not
pursuant to the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the
aforesaid L.P.As.
8. The dispute in the present writ petitions was the subject-matter before
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shrenik Bhai Kasturbhai and
others v. Ganpat Rai Jain and others in L.P.A. No.332 of 1997(R) and
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
other analogous matters, reported in 2004 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB). In
the said cases, the Full Bench of this Court has held in paragraphs 69 and 71
as under:
"69. Coming to the appeal filed by the Digambaris, it is
seen that the relief claimed by them in Title Suit No.23 of 1968,
in addition to the declaration that Ext. 9(a) agreement entered
into by Anandji Kalyanji and the State is void, are a
mandatory injunction directing Anandji Kalyanji to demolish
some new constructions sought to be put up by it and a
permanent injunction restraining Anandji Kalyanji from
making any further construction in Parasnath Hill for a
declaration that the Digambaris are entitled to construct a
dharamshala or a Rest House on the Parasnath Hill and
restraining Anandji Kalyanji from interfering with the
Digambars from enforcing any of their rights over the Hill.
The Trial Court, -- though it substantially dismissed the suit, -
-observed that Digambaris were justified in trying to put up a
dharamshala for the convenience of the Digambar Jain
pilgrims, but in view of the fact that the right to the Hill
vested in Anandji Kalyanji, what the Digambaris could do was
to put up the constructions only with the permission of
Anandji Kalyanji. The Trial Court practically directed Anandji
Kalyanji to grant such permission if it was applied for
by Digambars. The learned single Judge rejected the claim for
the relief since it was conceded by the senior counsel on
behalf of the Digambaris that if Ext. 9(a) agreement was found
void, equally, the Court had to find that the agreement
D/1 entered into by the Digambaris with the Government was
also void. In the light of this, we are not satisfied that a
case for further relief has been made out by the Digambaris.
But at the same time, it is clear that the unfettered right of
Digambars to worship in 20 tonks, charans and the temple of
Gautam Swamy, cannot in any manner be interfered with
by Anandji Kalyanji representing the Murti Pujak Community
of India. That right of the Digambaris are liable to be
protected. But we are not inclined to disturb the refusal by the
learned single Judge of not granting any other relief to the
Digambaris than the one granted to them by the Trial
Court. But in view of the finding that Anandji Kalyanji has no
subsisting right over the Parasnath Hill in view of the vesting
under the Land Reforms Act, the condition imposed by the
Trial Court that permission of Anandji Kalyanji was
necessary for construction of a dharamshala cannot be
sustained. The learned single Judge, consisting with his
finding should have modified this part of the decree. We
hold that the Digambaris could put up a dharamshala not in
consisting with the mode of their worship, only with the
permission of the Government in whom the land has
vested. Of course, now that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
has also intervened, no construction can be put up in the
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
Parasnath Hill forest, without the prior consent of the
Central Government as envisaged by Section 2 of the
Conservation Act. Thisclarification alone is warranted in
the suit filed by the Digambaris in addition to the relief
already granted by the single Judge and which we have
confirmed.
71. Considering that the places of worship on top of the
Parasnath Hill have been the subject of prolonged litigation
between the two sects of Jains, it appears to us to be
necessary to direct the State to make the necessary
arrangements for the proper up keep and maintenance of
the places of worship and also for providing reasonable
amenities to the pilgrims to the Hill. Since the entire land
other than 0.86 acres in Khewat No. 7 had vested in the
State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State has an
obligation not only to pay compensation for the lands
vested in the State under the Act, but also an obligation to
ensure that the places of worship comprising0.86 acres of
land are properly maintained, administered and looked after.
We think that it would be in the interests of all concerned,
if we direct the State of Jharkhand which has come in, in the
place of the State of Bihar to constitute a body for the
proper management of the places of worship in Khewat 7 and
the extent of46.28 acres which was earlier considered
necessary for the purposes of the places of worship. We
may notice here that there is nothing to show that the Raja of
Palganj had any title over the shrines, tonks and
charans located in 0.86 acres in Khewat No. 7 and the Raja
did not pretend to sell that extent or those structures to
Anandji Kalyanji when he executed Ext. 7 sale deed in the
year 1918. In that situation. It is difficult to find that the
title to 0.86 acres vested in Anandji Kalyanji. The title over the
rest of the property had vested in the State in terms of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It is in that context that
the State has the obligation to make arrangements for
the convenience of the pilgrims consistent with the mode
of worship in the shrines and without affecting the
religious sentiments of the Jain Community as a whole."
9. After the Full Bench judgment, the respondent-State has settled the
said Dak Bungalow in favour of respondent no.7 in W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008
in spite of the stay granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide
order dated 17.12.2008, that lead to filing of the contempt proceeding
being Contempt (Civil) Case No.2 of 2009 and vide order dated 13.02.2009
in the said contempt proceeding, the opposite party-State was directed to
restore the premises to the petitioner and thereby maintain status quo and
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
since the said order was complied with by the opposite parties and the
possession was restored in favour of the petitioner and status quo was
also maintained and in that view of the matter, by the subsequent order dated
04.05.2009 the contempt proceeding was dropped and the contempt
petition was disposed of. The said possession in favour of the petitioner is
being maintained till date, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State
in respective cases.
10. Since the settlement made in favour of respondent no.7 in W.P.(C)
No.5920 of 2008 was contrary to the judgment passed by the Full Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid L.P.As., the impugned order dated
29.11.2008 passed by respondent no.2, contained in Annexure-10 of
W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008 is arbitrary and in absence of any modified order by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of that, the said order dated
29.11.2008 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and, as such, the order dated
29.11.2008 contained in Memo No.3926 passed by respondent no.2-
Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, which is subject-matter in W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2008 is,
hereby, quashed.
11. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and as both the sides are in agreement of disposing of both the
writ petitions in light of observation made in paragraph 71 of the Full
Bench judgment passed in the aforesaid L.P.As. subject to the outcome in
the aforesaid S.L.P. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of
that, these writ petitions are disposed of in light of the submission made
by the learned counsel for the State as the observation made in
With
( 2026:JHHC:10801 )
paragraph 71 of the Full Bench judgment is already being maintained by
the State.
12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
13. Pending I.As., if any, are disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 16th April, 2026
Ajay/
Uploaded on
17th April, 2026
With
