“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
