Lal Bahadur Jha vs Bihar State Board Of Religious ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5183 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5952 of 2022
     ======================================================

1. Lal Bahadur Jha Son of Late Guneshwar Jha resident of Village and Post-

Garhpura, P.S.- Garhpura, District- Begusarai.

2. Sujit Jha Son of Lal Bahadur Jha, resident of Village and Post- Garhpura, P.S.- Garhpura, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

2. The President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

3. The Superintendent, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

4. Shri Subhash Yadav, Adhayaksha, Baba Hari Giri Dham, Vikash Samiti, Garhpura, Begusarai.

5. Shri Laxmi Kant Pyare Lal, Secretary, Baba Hari Giri Dham, Vikash Samiti, Garhpura, Begusarai.

6. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.

7. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Bakhri, Begusarai.

8. The Circle Officer, Garhpura Anchal, Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma with Mr.Suman Kumar Verma and Mr. Amresh Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the BSBRT : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP 18 with Ms. Prerna Anand, AC to GP 18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-10-2023

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Singh,

learned counsel representing the Bihar State Board of Religious

Trusts (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Board'). The State is

represented by Ms. Prerna Anand, learned counsel.

2. The petitioners by invoking the extraordinary Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India are seeking following reliefs:

"(i) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing therein the order dated 08.03.2021 passed Adhyaksha (president), Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, patna (Respondent No.2) in connection with the complaint filed by the petitioners dated 02.11.2017 addressed to the president, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Patna in view of being perverse, flawed, erroneous as also arbitrary.

(ii) Issue further a writ in the nature of mandamus/order/direction the concerned upon Respondent/ Respondents commanding therein to enable and allow the petitioners to resume performing Puja and rituals etc. on behalf of their 'yajmans' (devotees) at the Baba Hari Giri Dham Trust/Shrine, a public Trust registered with the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Patna situated under Garhpura Anchal and Police Station in the district of Begusarai forthwith restoring their rights to earn livelihood in the backgrond of being the descendants of the recorded raiyat, namely, Domi Jha who hold covered under a land property Khata no. 1409, Thana No.136, situated at Mauza- Kumharso in the district of Begusarai which stood recorded in the Khatiyan as the "SHIVOTTAR VRIT" land by virtue of worship, service and association of the ancestor/s of the petitioners with the Baba Hari giri Dham Trust.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction upon the concerned respondents for placing on record the file containing the original letter/report dated 30.11.2016 issued by the Revenue Karamchari (Staff) addressed to the circle officer, Garhpura in the district of Begusarai in the background of non-

furnishing of the original copy of the letter dated 30.11.2016 by the office of the circle officer, Garhpura in response to the requisition filed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

petitioner dated 03.12.2021 to this effect.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The petitioners claimed to be descendants of late

Domi Jha, have been performing puja and administering rituals

and ceremonies at Baba Hari Giri Dham Trust at Garhpura in

the District of Begusarai since a long time. In recognition of

dedicated services to the trust, a piece of land situated at Mauja-

Kumharso, covered under Khata No. 1409, Thana No. 136 in

the district of Begusarai was recorded in the khatiyan in the

name of Domi Jha, ancestor of the petitioners as Shivottar Vrit.

The temple, as noted above, is a registered public religious trust.

A Trust Committee was constituted by the Board and having

found satisfactory service the term of the Trust Committee was

also extended by the Board vide order dated 25.10.2019 for a

period of further five years.

4. The petitioners on being deprived and refrained by

the members of the Trust Committee in performing puja and

other rituals etc. on behalf of their yajmans filed an application

before President of the Board stating all the details and illegal

action of the Managing Committee in not allowing them to

perform their inheritable rights.

5. The claim of the petitioners is entirely based upon Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

the khatiyan recorded in the name of Domi Jha, common

ancestor of the petitioners as Shivottar Vrit in the record of

rights. On receipt of the complaint, enquiry was conducted at

the level of concerned Halka Karmchari, who submitted his

report in favour of the petitioners, showing late Domi Jha as

common ancestors of the petitioners as Shivottardar Pujari.

Certain other official documents, including recommendation to

consider their case for allowing them to work as Pujari has also

been placed before the Board in support of their claim, showing

the petitioners as descendants of late Domi Jha, appear to be

Shivottardar priests.

6. The claim of the petitioners was duly considered by

the Board and after having found that the khatiyan on the basis

of which the entire claim of the petitioners revolves around, that

relates to Kumharso Mauja though the temple (Baba Hari Giri

Dham Trust) in question is situated at Gadhpura. It has been

found that there is no temple/math at Kumharso Mauja and

name of one Narsingh Jha is registered in the register as

recipient of rent. It has further been found that from the

khatiyan, it does not appear the name of the petitioners as

Shivottardar and moreover certain interpolation was found in

the report of Halka Karmchari, annexure-3, wherein in place of Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

Shivottardar ke, "Shivottardar pujari" has been inserted. In none

of the documents, the petitioners have been shown as priest and

moreover the temple Baba Hari Giri Dham is situated at

Gadhpura over Khata No. 190 and 206, and the name of "Shri

Jha" has not been entered. On the basis of the aforesaid finding,

the claim of the petitioners came to be rejected vide order dated

08.03.2021, which is under challenge before this Court by filing

the present writ petition.

7. The petitioners, while assailing the impugned order

dated 08.03.2021 have submitted that though the official

documents addressed in between the officers and the Board have

been doubted but surprisingly the onus has been shifted upon

the petitioners to prove the genuineness of the same, against all

the cannons of the law. If the Board has had any suspicion over

the documents, he can very well ask for the original documents.

He further submits that there is no temple at Kumharso and the

Khatiyan in the name of late Domi Jha, refers to the temple

situated at Gadhpura, which has been ignored without there

being any justifiable reason. Furthermore, no local enquiry was

conducted despite the fact that the local persons have filed

affidavits in support of the petitioners that they were the pujaris

since long in the temple.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board

while refuting the contention of the petitioners has submitted

that so far the right of the petitioners is concerned it is not an

inheritable right and moreover, from the materials available on

record, it appears that the khatiyan upon which the petitioners

are basing their claim is not anyhow connected to the temple in

question, which is a public religious trust. The khatiyan in

question relates to temple situated at Khmharso, where there is

no such temple. He next submitted that even if the petitioners

are aggrieved by the order they have remedy before the Civil

Court of competent jurisdiction because a disputed question of

fact cannot be decided in the present writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Before parting with the final outcome, it would be

worth noting that any person is not entitled to be continued as a

matter of right in the temple/math as "Pujari" in absence of any

document, contemplating mode of succession to that office

through the founder or Shebait nominated by the founder in this

regard. For proper appreciation of this issue, it would be

apposite to quote relevant paragraph of judgment rendered by

the learned Division bench of this Court in the case of Gauri

Shankar vs. Ambika Dutt & Ors., since reported in AIR 1954 Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

Patna 196.

"7. Before doing so it is necessary to indicate the legal principles which provide the setting for the issues to be investigated in the present case. It is important to state that a pujari or archak is not a shebait. A pujari is appointed by the Shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship. But that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the shebait to the purohit. He is not entitled, to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. He is merely a servant appointed by the Shebait for the performance of ceremonies. Where the appointment of a purohit has been at the will of the founder the mere fact that the appointees have performed the worship for several generations, will not confer an independent right upon the members of the family so appointed and will not entitle them as of right to be continued in office as priest -- 'Maharanee Inderjit Kuer v. Chundemun Missir', 16 WR 99 (Cal) (A); -- 'Kali Krishna v. Makham Lal', AIR 1923 Cal 160 (B), and -- 'Ananda Chandra v. Broja Lal', AIR 1923 Cal 142 (C). If, therefore, there is no proof in this case that Bakshi Bhagwat Lal had appointed Aditnath Misssr as Mutwalli but he was appointed merely as Pujari the plaintiff will not be entitled to get a decree."

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and

the position obtaining in law, this Court does not find any error

in the order impugned dated 08.03.2021, apart from the fact that

there is no statutory right in favour of the petitioners to continue

as pujari in absence of any valid document. However, it has

rightly been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel

representing the Board that if the petitioners have any grievance Patna High Court CWJC No.5952 of 2022 dt.09-10-2023

with regard to the order, the remedy is available before the Civil

Court of competent jurisdiction to get their right adjudicated

after leading evidences in support of their claim.

11. In view thereof, the present writ petition stands

dismissed having no merit.

(Harish Kumar, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date           11.10.2023
Transmission Date       N.A.