Disposed

Bidyut Kumar Tandon v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC25 Jul 2023CWJC/4459/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Trust's notice demanding grounds for a petition. The Court held that the Trust's file noting was not a judicial order requiring challenge and that the petitioner should first approach the Trust Board to present documents and hear personal objections before seeking judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed with direction to the petitioner to approach the Trust Board to present documents and secure a reasoned order.

Bidyut Kumar Tandon Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4459 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Bidyut Kumar Tandon son of Late Gopal Prasad Tandon, resident of VillageJandaha, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna through its Administrator.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr.Mandal, SC 3 ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶12

7 25-07-2023

¶13

Heard Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned Counsel

¶14

for the petitioner and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel who represent the Bihar State Religious Trust Board (henceforth for short ‘the Trust’).

¶15

The present writ petition has been preferred for challenging the notice issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 2487 dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure 13 to the petition) by which he was asked to appear before ‘the Trust’ to place his case in view of the information that ‘the Trust’ got that the lands are being transferred.

¶16

The matrix of facts giving rise to present petition is/are as follows:-

¶17

One Pancham Das was recorded as tenant of the land

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 2/9

¶19

in question and the same stands registered with ‘the Trust’ Board since 1962.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that from 1967 to 1987, there was no correspondence between ‘the Trust’ and the ‘ Mahanth ’.

¶21

In 1987, a notice was issued vide letter no. 2506 dated 28.07.1987 asking him to file returns which has not done by him and further why criminal proceeding bel not initiated against him.

¶22

Mrs. Chatterjee has brought on record the documents of ‘the Trust’ dated 13.11.1987 which shows that the concerned official had given his noting that the land in question is a private property and not and ‘the Trust’ which do not have any say in it.

¶23

However on 28.07.1987 a notice was issued which read as follows :-

¶24

¶25

fcgkj jkT; /kkfeZd U;kl i’kZn] fo|kifr ekxZ] iVuk i= la[;k& 2506 fnukad 28-07-87 izs’kd] Jh ,l-ch- flag ,e- dkWe izHkkjh frjgqr izeaMyA lsok esa] egUFk iape nkl] xzke tUnkgk] iks- tUnkgk ftyk oS”kkyh egk”k;]

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 3/9

¶27

i;ZIr le; fn;s tkus ij Hkh vkius vHkh rd okf’kZd o’kZ 1961&62 ls okf’kZd o’kZ 1986&87 rd dk fooj.k ,oa foÙkh; o’kZ 1987&88 dk ctV vkSj Qhl dh ckdh jde :i;s nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA vr% vki fnukad 20-7-87 rd ctV fn[kk;s fd D;ksa ugha mDr vfHk;ksx esa vki ij nQk 67 dks QkStnkjh dk eqdnek yxk fn;k tk;sA bls vko”;d le>sA

¶28

(Annexure-3 to the petition)

¶29

Further there is another noting in the file which

¶30

read as follows :-

¶31

lafpdk la0 60] tUnkgk laxr] ftyk oS”kkyh esa fo”ks’k inkf/kdkjh fcgkj jkT; /kkfeZd U;kl i’kZn }kjk fnukad 13-11-87 dks ikfjr vkns”k dk lPph izekf.kr izfryfi

¶32

v/kh{kd]

¶33

i=kpkj 1 ls 8 tks lsok;r ds }kjk fn;kx;k gS] ns[kk tk;A lsok;r egaFk iape nkl us U;kl dks futh gksus dk nkok fd;k gSA blds lcwr esa bUgksaus lun] 2 jlhnsa] ,oa [kfr;ku dh Nk;k izfrfyfi nkf[ky fd;k gS vkosnu eas bUgksaus dgk gS fd vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh us ,d izfrosnu Hkh fn;k Fkk ftlesa mUgksaus bls futh U;kl ekuk FkkA

¶34

i=kpkj 5 tks lun dk udy gS ns[kk tk;A Jh xksiky yky us 1 ch?kk 17 dV~Bk 11 /kwj tehu ftl ij laxr gS cuokdj Jh egaFk f”ko n;ky nkl ds fuokl o vkjke ¼catj d;ke oks vjke Jh egFk f”ko n;ky nkl½ ds fy, nku fn;kA mUgsa gd fn;k x;k fd os - --vLi’V---- etdwj eas fuokl djsa ,oa ¼rljQ½ Hkksx djsa oks ftldks psyk cuk dj cSBk;s blesa dksbZ vkifr;kj nkrk us viuk ugha j[kk A

¶35

nwljk lug i=kpkj 3 tks Jh c`t fcgkj yky us fy[kk gS mlesa vf/kdkj fn;k gS fd egaFk etdwj dkfCt nkf[ky jgdj iSnkokj mldk dqy rl:Q eas ykoas vkSj [kjp fd;k djsa A

¶36

i=kpkj 4 [kfr;ku dh Nk;k izfrfyfi gSA [kfr;ku esa Jh iape nkl jS;r ds [kkrs eas ntZ gSA

¶37

i=kpkj 6 ,oa 7 jlhn dh Nk;k izfr gSA jlhnas Jh iape

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 4/9

¶39

nkl ds uke ls dVrh gSA

¶40

lug ls izrhr gksrk gS fd lEifÙk dk nku O;fDrxr :i ls lar fo”ks’k dks fn;k x;k tks muds xq: FksA laLFkk dks nku izrhr ugha gksrk gSA [kfr;ku ,oa jlhnsa Hkh futh uke ls dVrh gS bu lc dkxtkrksa ls izrhr gksrk gS fd lkjh lEifÙk futh gS ,oa /kkfeZd U;kl i’kZn ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gSA

¶41

U;kl dh iqjkuh lafpdk la0 162 dks vfHkys[kkxkj ls eaxk dj ns[kk tks lkFk esa layXu gSA mDr lafpdk esa i=kpkj 12 ns[kk tk;A mi lekgÙkkZ Hkwfe lq/kkj us izfrosnu esa bls futh lEifÙk ekuk gSA

¶42

mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa bl U;kl eas vkxs dh dk;Zokgh cUn dh tk ldrh gSA

¶43

fo-i-

¶44

iwoZ i’B ls dk-l- ,oa izHkkjh dh fVIi.kh dk di;k voyksdu fd;k tk;A va”k ^^d** ij ;Fkk izLrkforA

¶45

g0@& “;ke ukjk;.k ikaMs;]

¶46

fcgkj jkT; /kkfeZd U;kl i’kZn] iVuk

¶47

g0@& vLi’V g0@& vLi’V g0@& vLi’V 13-5-92 13-5-92 vLi’V Vad.k fd;k feyku fd;k v/kh{kd**

¶48

She has again taken this Court to the documents of

¶49

the Registry Office, Mahua by which the Sub- Registrar vide letter no. 162 dated 28.04.1992 made a request to clarify

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 5/9

¶51

whether the lands which the ‘ Mahanth ’ is transferring is a private property or not (Annexure 6 to the petition).

¶52

‘The Trust’ thereafter vide letter no. 547 dated 15.02.1992 informed that as it is a private property, no further permission is required from ‘the Trust’ (Annexure 7 to the petition).

¶53

It is her case that thereafter the ‘ Mahanth ’ executed Gift Deed in favour of the present petitioner on 12.05.1992.

¶54

It is her submission that suddenly after decades, the petitioner received letter no. 2487 dated 20.12.2016 by which he has been asked to submit his side on the ground that the transfers are being made relating to the land which is registered with ‘the Trust’.

¶55

vide I.A. No. 02 of 2023, she has brought another order dated 25.11.2022 issued by ‘the Trust’ under the signature of its President by which there has been stay on the sale/transfer and mutation of the land in question.

¶56

She as such, submits for the quashing of the said order.

¶57

Mrs. Chatterjee submits that when the Board in its file itself decided that it is a private trust and further

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 6/9

¶59

communicated the same to the Registry Office, it cannot review its own order and as such, the same is fit to be decided.

¶60

Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ‘the Trust’ submits that writ petition is fit to be rejected at preliminary stage as according to him, a notice was sent to the petitioner and he could have provided all the documents to support his case. Instead, he rushed to the Court and in the process had delayed the final passing of the order on the ground that a writ petition is pending before the Patna High Court.

¶61

He further submits that once the petitioner diligently appears before ‘the Trust’ Board with all the documents after hearing all the sides, a reasoned order can be passed immediately thereafter.

¶62

To the submission put forward by the Mrs. Chatterjee that the Board cannot review its own order, his submission is that the file noting cannot be considered as an order and as such there is no such order which is being reviewed by the Board.

¶63

Mrs. Chatterjee wanted the Court to take into account the order of the Patna High Court in the case of Pavitra Kuer Thakur Ram Jayaswal & anr. vs The State of Bihar

¶64

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 7/9

¶65

and ors. reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 578 specific reference to paragraph 8 which is incorporated below:-

¶66

“8. Religious Trust has been defined under section 2 (I) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. According to the definition, religious trust means any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognized by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which the public are not interested. From the very definition of the religious trust, it would clearly appear that every property cannot be grabbed by the Trust Board observing it to be the religious trust property. Before exercising its jurisdiction, the Board has to record a finding that an express or constructive trust was created or it was so existing for some purpose recognized by Hindu Law to be religious, pious or charitable. Unless such a finding is recorded by the Trust Board, it can not exercise its jurisdiction over the private properties under its own whim arbitrariness or caprice.”

¶67

This Court has taken note of the rival submission

¶68

put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also ‘the

¶69

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 8/9

¶70

Trust’ and finds force in the submission put forward by the learned Senior Counsel to the preliminary objection of the petitioner, a file noting can in no way to be considered as an order and in that background, ‘the Trust’ has rightly issued to the petitioner as it is an admitted fact that the land in question was registered with ‘the Trust’ in 1962 itself and it is not the case of the petitioner that at any point of time, the same was annulled.

¶71

This Court finds force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that only a notice has been issued and if the petitioner has the documents which included the file noting as also the communication directly made to the Registry Office that not permission is required, it could have been presented before the Court so that final order can be passed.

¶72

So far as the case of the Pavitra Kuer Thakur Ram Jayaswal (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, till date it has not been settled by an appropriate order whether the land is private Trust or a Public Trust and in that background, the order does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.

¶73

In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedy available before hearing

¶74

Patna High Court CWJC No.4459 of 2017(7) dt.25-07-2023 9/9

¶75

by appearing before ‘the Trust’.

¶76

Pursuant to the notice vide letter no. 2487 dated

¶77

20.10.2016

¶78

Needless to say once the petitioner appears with all the documents, after hearing him personally or through his lawyer, ‘the Trust Board’ will come to the conclusion and pass a reasoned order expeditiously.

¶79

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶80

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶81

Neha/-

¶82

Bidyut Kumar Tandon v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidyut Kumar Tandon v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jawahar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vishal Ranjan Vs The Union Of India, Through Smt. Sunita Sanghi, Director General Of Employment And Training

Dr. Kalpana Shrivastava Vs Mr. R. K. Mahajan, The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, and Ors.

Narbdeshwar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.