Patna High Court
Meera DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The order directing removal of encroachment by the Trust Board during the pendency of the miscellaneous appeal violates the Court's status‑quo order and is held to be inoperative until the appeal is decided.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of the original Sevayat of Marangi Shiv Mandir, challenged an order dated 11‑12‑2020 issued by the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust directing the recording of "Sri Shivji" as raiyat, removal of encroachment and constitution of a management committee. The dispute stems from a 1953 deed that vested temple land in the Sevayat and a 1988 Board order appointing a committee, which led to a suit declaring the petitioners' father not the Sevayat. The High Court had earlier imposed a status‑quo order on the disputed land in Misc. Appeal No. 493 of 2013. The petitioners argued that the Board’s removal‑encroachment order violated this interim order, while the Board contended the trust is a public trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. The Court held that the removal‑encroachment direction prima facie contravenes the status‑quo order and therefore stayed that portion of the order pending the appeal’s disposal. The remaining issues regarding the nature of the trust were left for the parties to pursue through appropriate remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust's order directing removal of encroachment on the temple land violates the status‑quo order passed by this Court in the pending miscellaneous appeal.
- Whether the petitioners can challenge the nature and management of the trust under writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the trust qualifies as a public trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 and the applicability of Section 28 thereof.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
Subjects
- public trust
- religious trust
- status quo
- encroachment
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act
- sevaayat
- temple management
- interim order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5129 of 2021
======================================================
1. Meera Devi Wife of Late Brahmanand Goswami Resident of Village- Ghasi
Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District- Katihar.
2. Manoj Kumar Goswami Son of Late Brahmanand Goswami Resident of
Village- Ghasi Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District-
Katihar.
3. Prem Ranjan Goswami Son of Late Brahmanand Goswami Resident of
Village- Ghasi Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District-
Katihar.
4. Niru Kumari Wife of Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Daughter of Late Brahmanand
Goswami Resident of Quarter No. 110/2B Amna, S.P. Street, Police Station-
Amna, Kolkatta- 700009.
5. Nisha Kumari Wife of Rahul Goswami, Daughter of Late Brahmanand
Goswami Resident of Village- Bhramarpur Police Station- Bihpur, District-
Bhagalpur.
6. Anju Kumari Daughter of Late Brahmanand Goswami Resident of Village-
Ghasi Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the District Magistrate, Katihar.
2. The District Magistrate Katihar.
3. The Additional Collector Katihar.
4. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate Katihar.
5. The Anchal Adhikari Mansahi, District- Katihar.
6. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vidyapati Marg, Patna-1 through
its President.
7. The Superintendent Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-1.
8. Dinesh Giri Son of Late Doman Giri Goswami Resident of Village- Ghasi
Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District- Katihar.
9. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Son of Late Sushil Kumar Singh Resident of Village-
Ghasi Tola Marangi, P.O. and Police Station- Mansahi, District- Katihar.
10. Administrator, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna -
1.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
2/10
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suresh Pd Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Kant
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash
Mr. Bimal Kumar Jha
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the State : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
For the Board : Mr. Ganpati Triwedi, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
9 06-01-2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ
application for setting aside the order, dated 11.12.2020, passed
by the President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (in short
“Trust Board), by which he has directed the Anchal Adhikari to
record the name of “Sri Shivji” as raiyat of the land of the
temple, namely, Marangi Shiv Mandir, Ghasi Tola, Katihar, and
for removal of encroachment over the subject land and further
directed for constitution of committee of 07 members for
management of the temple, in question.
2. The background fact of the case relates to the
property and management of Shiv Mandir, Ghasi Tola, Marangi,
Police Station Mansahi, District Katihar, which was donated and
constructed by one Late Babu Lal Singh and Late Domangiri
Goswami was appointed as Sevayat for offering pooja in the
temple.
3. Late Babu Lal Singh executed a registered deed of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
3/10
“Khorposh”, dated 19.12.1953, in favour of the Sevayat with
respect to land donated for temple, the details of which are
mentioned in paragraph nos. 6 and 7of the writ application.
4. In the registered deed, the line of succession has
been described to the extent that after death of Domangiri
Goswami, his heirs will offer the pooja in temple and also
manage and maintain the temple, in question.
5. The case of the petitioners is that since then the
petitioners, being heirs of the original Sevayat i.e. Late
Domangiri Goswami, are maintaining and managing the temple.
6. In the year 1988, the Trust Board issued a
direction appointing the Committee for management of the
property of the temple and the then Deputy Collector Land
Reforms (DCLR) was appointed as Chairman of the Committee.
7. The husband of the petitioner no. 1-Late
Brahmanand Goswami, being aggrieved by the interference of
the Board, filed a suit vide Application No. 01 of 1989 for
declaration that the orders issued by the Board are illegal and
inoperative and also for declaration that the plaintiff is the
Sevayat of the temple. The further relief in the suit was for
injunction not to interfere in the management of the property of
the temple.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
4/10
8. The Trial Court passed the judgment vide
judgment, dated 27.04.2007, and decree, dated 14.05.2007,
declared that the plaintiff-Brahmanand Goswami is not the
Sevayat of the temple and rather his brother, namely, Dinesh
Goswami, is Sevayat and further declared that the order of
Special Officer of the Trust Board, dated 12.05.1988 and order
of the DCLR, dated 28.02.1989, are illegal and without
jurisdiction and in-operative.
9. Late Brahmanand Goswami i.e. the husband of
the petitioner no. 1 challenged the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 01 of 1989 in appeal before
this Court against the finding that he was not the Sevayat of the
temple. The appeal was registered as first appeal, bearing F. A.
No. 183 of 2007, which was subsequently converted into Misc.
Appeal No. 493 of 2013. Brahmanand Goswami died on
27.09.2017 and the petitioners have been substituted in the
Misc. Appeal No. 493 of 2013, vide order, dated 22.11.2017,
passed by this Court.
10. In the miscellaneous appeal, an application
under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was
filed by the petitioner restraining the respondent no. 17 i.e.
Dinesh Giri from interfering in the management of property of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
5/10
the temple, in which, after hearing the parties, an order of status
quo, dated 27.07.2007, was passed till disposal of the appeal by
this Court. Subsequently, the Superintendent of the Trust Board
issued a letter, bearing letter no. 604, dated 21.08.2018,
directing the District Magistrate, Katihar, to make an enquiry
about the management of the property of the temple and to
furnish names of 11 hindu members for constitution of trust
committee. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Additional
Collector, Katihar, issued another letter, bearing letter no. 1155,
dated 03.11.2018, directing the Anchal Adhikari, Mansahi, to
make an enquiry and submit a report for constitution of
committee.
11. The petitioners being aggrieved by the action of
the Board and Additional Collector, Katihar, in interfering in the
management of the temple, filed a writ petition before this Court
in CWJC No. 5714 of 2019, which was disposed vide order,
dated 21.11.2019, with liberty to the petitioners to file a
representation before the President of the Board and the
President of the Board was directed to consider the grievance of
the petitioners and materials placed by the petitioners and to
take appropriate decision.
12. The petitioners filed the representation on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
6/10
11.12.2020 before the President of the Board and the President,
by order, dated 11.12.2020, directed the constitution of
committee, removal of encroachment and recording of name of
Sri Shiv Ji in the record of rights
13. Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, argued that the matter is sub-judice
before this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 493 of 2013, in which,
status quo order has been passed pertaining to the subject land,
but the President of the Trust Board has directed for removal of
encroachment from the property which was subject matter of the
suit and the miscellaneous appeal. According to learned counsel,
the impugned order passed by the President of the Trust Board
for removal of encroachment is violative of the status quo order
passed by this Court.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Chandra Kant and Mr.
Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private respondents
jointly argued that the Trust, in question, is a public trust and
was registered as a public trust in the year 1962 having
registration no. 1013. Since, it is a public trust and the
petitioners are the encroachers, as such, the President of the
Trust Board has rightly passed the order for removal of
encroachment from the trust property.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
7/10
15. Mr. Chandra Kant further pointed out that once
the trust has been declared as Public Trust by the President of
the Trust Board by the impugned order and nature of the trust
has not been challenged by the petitioners under Section 28 of
the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, as such, the dispute
regarding management and functioning of the Trust cannot be
agitated before this Court by way of writ jurisdiction.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the materials available on records, including the
impugned order passed by the President of the Trust Board.
17. The dispute in the Trust arose way back in the
year 1988, when the Trust Board directed for appointment of
committee for management of the Trust and this led to the filing
of the suit, bearing Title Suit No. 01 of 1989 by the husband of
the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Late Brahmanand Goswami. The details
of trust property are mentioned in the schedule of property
appended to the plaint, having Khata No. 35 situated at
Narainpur Thana No. 115, PS Pranpur, with an area of 2.16
decimals and the area of 0.40 decimals and 0.08 decimals
pertaining to Plot No. 25 and 26 having Khata No. 32, situated
at Ghasitola Thana No. 11, PS Pranpur, is also part of Schedule
‘B’ of the plaint.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
8/10
18. The Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint refers to the land
belonging to the Trust and was the subject matter of the suit.
The suit was decreed with the finding that Late Brahmanand
Goswami was not the Sevayat and further declared that the
order passed by the Special Officer of the Religious Trust
Board, dated 12.05.1988 and DCLR, dated 28.02.1989, are
illegal and without jurisdiction.
19. Late Brahmanand Goswami and subsequently
the petitioners challenged the judgment and decree passed by
the Trail Court to the extent holding that Late Brahmanand
Goswami was not the Sevayat. The appeal was initially
registered at first appeal, bearing F. A. No. 183 of 2007,
however, the same was converted into Misc. Appeal No. 493 of
2013.
20. Undisputedly, this Court passed an order of
status quo in the miscellaneous appeal on 27.07.2017 directing
all the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed
property till disposal of the appeal. The disputed property is
described in the Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. The status quo order
passed by this Court, therefore, pertains to the disputed trust
property, which include the plot no. 25 and 26 having an area of
0.40 decimals and 0.08 decimals and also the property having an
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
9/10
area of 02.16 decimals in Khata No. 35.
21. The President of the Trust Board by the
impugned order has directed for removal of encroachment from
the aforesaid land upon which the status quo order passed by
this Court in miscellaneous appeal operates.
22. The grievance of the petitioners at present
before this Court is with regard to the order of the President of
the Trust Board directing for removal of encroachment.
23. This Court finds that the impugned order
directing for removal of encroachment during the pendency of
the miscellaneous appeal prima facie violates the status quo
order.
24. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order
directing for removal of encroachment from the subject land is
in the teeth of interim/status-quo order passed by this Court and
shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Misc. Appeal No.
493 of 2013.
25. Insofar as other finding including regarding the
nature of trust, this Court is not expressing its opinion and the
parties shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy
in accordance with law.
26. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5129 of 2021(9) dt.06-01-2026
10/10
this writ application is, accordingly, disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U
Checking your session…