Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust through Its Authorized Signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:33599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1734 of 2023

Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, though its authorized signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey, aged about 51 years son of late Ramesh Chowbey, resident of Castairs' Town, Teen No. Fari, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan Dhruva, P.O. and P.S. Dhruva, District: Ranchi.

¶9

The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District: Deoghar.

¶11

The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶12

The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶13

The Circle Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S Deoghar, District Deoghar

¶14

Surendra Prasad Keshri, aged about 73 years, S/o Late Dhirendra Prasad Keshri R/o House No.20, Ward No.07, Harendra Sinha Colony, Vidhubhushan Sarkar Road Baramasia, P.O & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar.

¶15

..……Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶18

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III For the Intervenor : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv.

¶20

CAV ON:13.10.2025 Pronounced On:-04/11/2025

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

1

¶23

2025:JHHC:33599

¶24

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

¶25

by the petitioner for following reliefs: -

¶26

(i) For quashing of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Learned Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in Misc case No.45/2006-07 (annexure-7) whereby and whereunder appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 3 of the Boards of Miscellaneous Rules 1947 against the order issued by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, vide memo No.2441 dated 20.07.2004 has been dismissed.

¶27

(ii) For quashing of the order dated 20th July 2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, passed vide Memo No.2441, whereby and whereunder the salepurchase registration any deed/instrument relation to of the property of the petitioner has been prohibited till further order

¶28

(iii) For stay of the order(s) dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Learned Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in Misc Case No.45/2006-07 and also the order dated 20th July 2004 issued by the Deputy Collector, Deoghar, vide Memo No.2441, during the pendency of the present writ application.

¶29

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is running and managing several dharmsalas and other institutions all over India. In Deoghar Town, the petitioner holds and possesses properties including a dharmsala, the full description of which is as "Schedule A" and "Schedule B" in mauza Shyamganj No.413, within Deoghar Municipal Ward No.7, details given below:

¶30

Details of Schedule A	Details of Schedule B
Jamabandi No.2955	Jamabandi No.3102
Holding No.23	Holding No. 197
Area: 15805 sq ft	Area: 9385 sq ft

¶31

2

¶32

2025:JHHC:33599

¶33

Boundary	Boundary
North: Sabji Market.	North: Sabji Market.
South: Building of Domilal	South: Building of Domilal
Sah and other	Sah and other
_West_Land and shops of	West: Dharamsala Holding
R.C.Goenka.	No.23.
East: R.C.Goenka Road.	East: Shyamganj Road.

¶34

"Schedule A" and "Schedule B" properties were separately acquired by two different persons at different time and as such, in the office of the Circle Officer, Deoghar, the "Schedule A" and "Schedule B" properties were recorded as separate Jamabandies with separate holding numbers of Deoghar Municipality. All the Government taxes for "Schedule A" and "Schedule B" properties are being paid separately, for which separate receipts were being issued.

¶35

The society is empowered from time to time to make rules and regulations in connection with the conduct of the affairs and the society shall have the power to add, to alter, repeal, cancel or to make void all or any of such rules and regulations and to make fresh once in the place or istead of those repealed, cancelled or made void.

¶36

4. The facts further reveal that the committee of the society in its general meeting held on 1.03.2005 felt

¶37

3

¶38

2025:JHHC:33599

¶39

that some money was required for the management of the petitioners' properties which was not possible without transfer of the some properties of the society, and as such amendment was made to the memorandum /regulation with respect to the right to transfer, lease, sale etc., in the interest of the society and for the furtherance of the object of the society was also added.

¶40

The alteration/amendment was registered in the office of the Registrar of Firm Society, West Bengal, and to that effect, a letter to the Secretary of the society being letter No.8/526 dated 08.03.2005 was sent, giving intimation that the said alteration made in memorandum/regulation of the society was accepted by the Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal.

¶41

5. On 5th December, 2004, a resolution was passed in the meeting of the Board of Executive Committee of society of the petitioner, wherein the Members have unanimously decided to strengthen its corpus fund for fulfilling aims and objects of the society and agreed to sale or lease of the various properties of the society all over India and it was further resolved that Mr. Hemant Goenka, was authorized to appoint person(s) and to do all other thing including giving power of attorney, signing of papers and documents in

¶42

4

¶43

2025:JHHC:33599

¶44

regard to sale or lease of the properties of society situated all over India.

¶45

Thereafter, Mr. Hemant Goenka executed power of attorney dated 17th November 2005 in favour of Krishna Mohan Chowbey, Son of Late Ramesh Chowbey to do and execute all or any of the acts, deeds, matters, and things with respect to the properties at Deoghar and to executes all powers and authorities, in respect of the properties at Deoghar for and on behalf of society.

¶46

6. However, all of a sudden, an order dated 20th July, 2004 was passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, vide memo No.2441/Gopaniya, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, stating therein that one Samir Raut and 31 others had given a joint petition before the Hon'ble Minister, in which it is mentioned that Goenka Dharamsala @ Kabutar Dharamsala, near Azad Chowk, Deoghar, which is operated by Ramchandra Goenka Charitable Trust, is an ancient heritage of Deoghar, in which there are many temples. The official of the trust for fulfilment of their personal benefits is willing to sale the properties to landmafias, and accordingly, the sale-purchase registration of the Goenka Dharamsala @ Kabutar Dharamsala has been stayed till further order.

¶47

5

¶48

2025:JHHC:33599

¶49

7. The order dated 20th July 2004 passed vide memo no.2241/Gopaniya was challenged by the petitioner before Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in Misc Appeal No.45/2006-07, which was taken up for hearing on 28.11.2006 on the matter of stay and on 28.11.2006, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka gave his finding that properties mentioned under Schedule A and Schedule B are identifiable separately and also have separate jamabandi and separate holding, and the Petitioner is empowered to dispose of the property which is of private nature and the government has no obvious power to prevent the Petitioner from disposing its property, and accordingly, the Commissioner under its appellate jurisdiction, has stayed the operation of the order dated 20th July 2004 with regard to schedule B property and directed the sub-registrar, Deoghar, to register document kept pending since 21.12.2005 and case was kept for final determination.

¶50

8. Thereafter, the Respondents preferred a review petition before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, with a request to review the order dated 28.11.2006 but the same was not entertained vide order dated 30.04.2007.

¶51

6

¶52

2025:JHHC:33599

¶53

9. However, on 11.03.2022, Ld. Commissioner Santhal Pargana, Dumka passed an order in Misc. Appeal No.45/2006-07 and upheld the memo No.2441 dated 20.07.2004 and further directed to cancel several registered deeds (mentioned in order) with respect to the petitioners' property. Hence, this writ petition.

¶54

10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a private society registered under the Society Registration Act, having its own rules and regulations and memorandum and as per amended memorandum, duly approved by the appropriate authority, the Petitioner has got full right to transfer the schedule A and Schedule B property, as such the learned Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have no authority to restrain the petitioner from transferring Schedule A or Schedule B property for the benefit and management of the Charitable Society as there is no legal impediment in transferring the Schedule A and Schedule B property by way of sale, gift, mortgage, if necessary to fulfil the object of the society.

¶55

He further submitted that the respondents have acted beyond their jurisdiction and have exercised the power which is purely vested with civil court of competent jurisdiction and has passed a direction for cancelation of duly registered sale deeds.

¶56

7

¶57

2025:JHHC:33599

¶58

11. Ld. Counsel further draws attention of this Court and submits that the Deoghar Municipality had also claimed the property of the petitioner by issuing a notice vide letter No.336 dated 16.03.2007 through the special officer, Deoghar Municipality, directing the petitioner to handover the property which was transferred in his favour vide sale-deed No.1283/1895 dated 25.06.1895.

¶59

The said notice was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1604 of 2007 and this Court after hearing the parties quashed the same vide order dated 3.4.2007, holding that the property is owned, held and possessed by the petitioner since more than hundred and ten years .

¶60

12. It has been submitted that the orders impugned in this writ petition are beyond the competence of the respondents concerned. No reference to any statutory provision has been made in the impugned orders to trace the source of power to pass such an order. The orders directly infringe the right of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is competent to deal with its own property and no authority can restrain the petitioner from transferring

¶61

8

¶62

2025:JHHC:33599

¶63

its properties in any manner, whatsoever, unless there is a legal bar in doing so, which in the instant case has not been set out in any of the impugned orders.

¶64

Ld. Counsel lastly submitted that the order passed by the learned commissioner cancelling the registered sale deeds is directly in conflict with the provisions of the Registration Act as also the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also this High Court wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the power to cancel a registered sale deed can only be exercised by a Civil Court in a duly constituted suit in exercise of powers conferred under the Specific Relief Act.

¶65

Ld. Counsel contended that neither the Santhal Pargana Supplementary Provisions Act, 1949; nor any other law in force in the State of Jharkhand empowers the Commissioner to pass an order cancelling the registered sale deed executed by the Petitioners.

¶66

13. Learned counsel for the Respondent had submitted that the Goenka Dharamsala commonly known as Kabutar Dharamsala was managed by Ram Chandra Goenka Trust which is situated over the land duly granted by Chairman, Deoghar, Municipality through Patta and the said Dharamsala is a public trust property duly registered in Bihar State Board of religious

¶67

9

¶68

2025:JHHC:33599

¶69

trust and after enactment of Bihar Reorganization Act 2000, the said Dharamsala is under Jharkhand Religious Trust Board.

¶70

It has been further submitted that as per Judicial pronouncement of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1799/2001 (Ajit Kumar Vrs. State of Jharkhand and others) all the Charitable Trust in the State of Jharkhand shall be guided/control/supervise as per Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as Trust Act). He further submits that it is an admitted position that Goenka Dharamsala alias Kabutar Dharamsala is a trust property and without Previous sanction of JHRT BOARD, the properties cannot be sold as per Provision U/S 44 of the Act.

¶71

14. Ld. Counsel also submitted that public trust property cannot be transferred by any vested interest. Kabutar Dharamsala i.e. Goenka Dharamsala is running since more than one century back and it is in the heart of town and provides shelter to pilgrims. The entire campus of Kabutar Dharamsala alias Goenka Dharamsala is a trust property and it is relevant to mention that whole part of Dharamsala is standing partly over land allowed by Deoghar Municipality and partly over land allotted by the settler and once a public trust is created; the heir of

¶72

10

¶73

2025:JHHC:33599

¶74

the settler or their authorized signatory has no locus standi to treat themselves as an owner and dispose of the same.

¶75

15. He had lastly submitted that from bare perusal of the order dated 10/03/2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 45/2006-07 it is very much obvious that the Divisional Commissioner, S.P. Dumka applied his judicial mind, considered the case from all probable angles and rightly arrived at final conclusion that the order dated 20/07/2004 contained in Memo No. 2441 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is valid one.

¶76

As such, the said order is fit to be upheld keeping in view of the principle that public equity has larger say than private equity. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

¶77

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, it appears that on the joint petition of one Samir Raut and Others, without any verification an interim order was passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, 20.07.2004 (Annexure-4 of the writ application). Further, an order was also issued by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar directing the Circle officer, Deoghar/Amin to verify and take measurement of the property physically and in

¶78

11

¶79

2025:JHHC:33599

¶80

compliance of that order; physical verification was made by Amin and a report was submitted by him stating therein that both the properties i.e. Schedule-A & Schedule-B properties, are identically separate by having separate jamabandi and holding numbers i.e. ( Jamabandi No.2955 and holding number 23 of Schedule A and jamabandi No.3102, Holding Number NO. 197 of Schedule B). Schedule A is Ramchandra Goinka Dharamsala/Kabutar Dharamsala and Schedule B is the other property. The report of Amin is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

¶81

17 . It further transpires that in the Misc Appeal No.45/2006-07 filed by the Petitioner before the then Commissioner Dumka against the Order Memo No.2441/Gopaniya dated 20th July 2004; on 28.11.2006, an order was passed by the then Commissioner, Dumka, observing therein that both the properties are identically separate having different Jamabandi and separate Holding and the trust is empowered to dispose the property which is private in nature and the government has no power to prevent trust to dispose its property.

¶82

It was also observed that order of Deputy Commissioner relates to the alleged transfer of Kabutar Dhramsala while the appellants' lease deed presented for registration of related to Schedule B property which is

¶83

12

¶84

2025:JHHC:33599

¶85

separate from Dhramsala. Further direction was issued to sub-registrar, Deoghar to register the deeds which was kept pending since 21.12.2005 and operation of the order passed vide Memo No.2441/ Gopaniya dated 20th July 2004 was also stayed with regard to schedule "B" property (Annexure-5 of writ application).

¶86

Against the order dated 28.11.2006, a review was filed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the same was not entertained vide order dated 30.04.2007.

¶87

18 . At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that none of the provisions of the Jharkhand State Hindu religious Board are applicable to any of the affairs of the Petitioner as Petitioner is not public religious trust; rather it is a private charitable society registered under the Society Registration Act. The founder of the Trust was Ramchandra Goinka and after his death his sons and members of the family created the society. All trustees from generation to generation appointed / nominated among the family members of Ram Chandra Goenka and no person from outside was ever made trustee of the said society and Ramchandra Goinka Charitable Society, has got several immovable properties situated in Deoghar, Bihar, Orissa and Kolkatta and all the properties are managed and controlled by Ram Chandra Goenka

¶88

13

¶89

2025:JHHC:33599

¶90

Charitable Trust, having its head office at Kolkatta and entire activities and managements are controlled / managed/look after by the manager appointed by the members.

¶91

As such, the Dharamsala managed by Ram Chandra Goenka Charitable trust, cannot be treated or termed as property of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust now Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust which has adopted the said provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950.

¶92

19 . It is also evident from records that the Bihar State Religious Trust, Patna, on 22.07.1987 has filed a declaratory suit being Title (D) Suit No.43/1987 against the defendant Ramchandra Goenka Charitable Society and its members Iswari Pd. Goenka, Jag Mohan Prasad Goenka, Ram Prasad Goenka, Devi Prasad Goenka; all being decedents of Ram Chandra Goenka who was the original founder of the society and the same suit was dismissed by the Learned Sub-Judge-III vide order dated 18.12.2005.

¶93

It is further evident from records that the Plaintiff of Title (D) Suit No.43/1987 also filed a petition for appointment of receiver in the suit during its pendency and the same petition was heard at length and vide order dated 21.09.87, learned Court observed that the provision of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act will

¶94

14

¶95

2025:JHHC:33599

¶96

not apply to the present Charitable Society and the said order dated 18.05.2005 passed in Title (D) Suit No.43/1987 was never challenged by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and had attain finality.

¶97

20 . It is also an admitted position that the property in question was transferred in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of sale deed No. 1283/1985 dated 25.06.1985 and in the year 2007 a letter vide letter No.336 dated 16.03.2007 was also issued by the Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, wherein the Petitioner was directed to hand over the property and the same was challenged by the Petitioner vide W.P.(C).No.1604/2007 and a coordinate bench of this Court quashed the same holding therein that the property was transferred in the favour of the Petitioner more than a century ago by virtue of registered sale deed (Annexure-8 of the Writ Application).

¶98

21 . Even otherwise, the order dated 20th July 2004 passed vide memo no.2441/Gopaniya, was passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, without issuance of any notice to the petitioner; nor any proceeding was initiated by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, while passing the present order. 22. At the cost of repetition, the order passed by the learned Commissioner cancelling the registered sale

¶99

15

¶100

2025:JHHC:33599

¶101

deeds is directly in conflict with the provisions of the Registration Act as also the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also by this High Court wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the power to cancel a registered sale deed can only be exercised by a Civil Court in a duly constituted suit in exercise of powers conferred by the Specific Relief Act.

¶102

Neither the Santhal Pargana Supplementary provisions Act, 1949; nor any other law in force in the State of Jharkhand empowers the Commissioner to pass an order cancelling the registered sale deed executed by the petitioners.

¶103

23. Further, as stated hereinabove, the Bihar State Religious Trust, Patna, on 22.07.1987 has filed a declaratory suit being Title (D) Suit No.43/1987 against the defendant Ramchandra Goenka Charitable Society and its members and the said suit was dismissed by the Learned Sub-Judge-III vide order dated 18.12.2005 and the order dated 18.05.2005 passed in Title (D) Suit No.43/1987 was never challenged by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and had attain finality.

¶104

24. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in Misc. Case No.45/2006-07 (Annexure-7) as well as order

¶105

16

¶106

2025:JHHC:33599

¶107

dated 20.07.2004 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶108

25. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, is also closed.

¶109

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶110

November 04, 2025

¶111

Fahim/AFR Uploaded on 12/11/2025

¶112

17

Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust through Its Authorized Signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust through Its Authorized Signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Sunil Kumar Sultania Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

Jharkhand State Civil Courts Stenographers Associations through Its Secretary Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, through Santoush Kadam, Vs Jay Prakash Singh

Ranjit Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand