Patna High Court
Prahlad Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The dispute over the Seva Sadan must be decided by the District Judge under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, and the writ petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a notification (Memo No. 5350 dated 21‑03‑2022) issued by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, which constituted a committee for the Shree Badi Devi Ji Mandir and allegedly vested the management of the adjoining Seva Sadan (Dharamshala) in that committee. They argued that the Seva Sadan is a separate entity with its own deed, land records and trust deed, and that the Board had no authority to club it with the temple. The Board contended that its power to settle schemes under Section 32 is plenary and that any grievance must be pursued before the District Judge as prescribed by Section 32(3). The High Court examined the factual dispute over the separate plot numbers and the composition of the committee, and held that such substantive questions cannot be decided by a writ petition but must be adjudicated by the appropriate court under the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without interference with the Board’s order.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Board’s notification under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950.
- Whether the Seva Sadan is a separate religious trust distinct from the Shree Badi Devi Ji Mandir.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the Board’s scheme, or the matter must be decided by the District Judge under Section 32(3).
Legislation cited
- Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 — s. 32, 32(3)
Subjects
- religious trust
- Section 32
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- trust committee
- Seva Sadan
- Dharamshala
- board powers
- district judge
- property dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6567 of 2022
======================================================
1. Prahlad Kumar Yadav Son of Mahendra Prasad Resident of Village-
Marufganj, near State Bank of India, Post Office- Jhauganj, Police Station-
Patna City, District- Patna.
2. Umesh Kumar Son of Binod Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Marufganj,
Post Office- Marufganj, Police Station- Patna City, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, through its Secretary, Vidyapati
Marg, Patna-1.
4. The President, the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-1.
5. The Secretary, the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg,
Patna-1.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City, Patna.
8. The Administrator, Bihar State Religious Trust Board.
9. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Son of Anil Kumar Resident of Mohhalla - Marufganj
(Lal Pathak), Patna City, Sampatchak, P.S. - Malsalami, District- Patna.
10. Bhagwan Das Son of Ram Sevak Lal Yadav Resident of Near Badi Devi
Mandir, Marufganj, Mandi Patna City, P.O. - Marufganj, Nagla, Patna, P.S. -
Malsalami, District- Patna.
11. Sant Prasad Golwara Son of Rameshwar Prasad Golwara, Machharhatta
Gali, Patna City, P.s. - Khajekala, District- Patna, Bihar - 800008.
12. Sunil Kumar Banka Son of Madan Mohan Banka, Resident of Jhauganj Ghat
Lane, patna City, Nagla, P.S. - Chowk, District- Patna, Bihar - 800008.
13. Ishwar lal Agarwal Son of Jaisi Lal Agarwal, Resident of Pawan Vastralaya,
Ashok Raj Path, Near Jhauganj Post Office, Nagla, Patna City, P.S. Chowk,
District- Patna, Bihar - 800008.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap (GP-2)
For the Intervenor : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
For the Board : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
2/11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
11 13-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Senior counsel
representing the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (for
brevity ‘the Board’), Mrs. Shama Sinha, learned counsel
representing the Intervenor respondents and Mr. Prashant
Pratap, learned GP-2.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s)
order(s) direction(s) for quashing the part of the
notification as contain in memo no. 5350 dated
21.03.2022 issued under signature of the
President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust
(hereinafter referred to as "Board") whereby in
purported exercise of power under section 32 of
the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as "Act") whereby a trust
committee was constituted for management of
Shree Badi Devi Ji Mandir, Marufganj, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
3/11
city, Patna and wrongly vested the management
of Seva Sadan in the trust committee of the said
Shree Badi Devi Ji Mandir, Marufganj, Patna
city, Patna which is not at all connected with the
same and the petitioners further pray for to
exclude the Seva Sadan from the preview of the
aforesaid impugned notification and/or for
issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s), to which the petitioners are entitled
to in the facts and circumstances averred
hereinafter.
3. Lots of water has flown down the ganges in the
present case after the writ petition was filed in the year 2022.
The claim of the petitioner is/are that the Seva Sadan which is
adjoining to the Shri Badi Devi Ji Temple, Marufganj, Patna
City, Patna (henceforth for short, ‘the Temple’) is a separate
entity inasmuch as it came up with the financial assistance of
the local businessmen to cater to the needs of their
counterparts coming from the different parts of the country for
the purchase/sell of the items at Marufganj Mandi.
4. The details of the land stand incorporated in
paragraph nos. 4 to 6 of the petition and records that:
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
4/11
“4. the land of Seva Sadan was
purchased from one Rupan Beldar Son of Surju
Beldar, Resident of Mohalla Marufganj, police
station Malsalami, Patna Town by a registered
sale deed dated 23.08.1957. The registry of the
land of Seva Sadan is at present maintained in
the Patna registry Office in book no. 0-1, volume
no. 76, page no. 124, Ta. 127, Basika No. 6051,
year 1957;
5. after purchase of the aforesaid land,
the people of the local business community
contacted the management committee of Badi
Devi Mandir, Marufganj for demanding some
part of the land for ingress and egress of Seva
Sadan from plot no. 163 and thereafter with the
help of donation from the local businessman, the
building of Seva Sadan was constructed and the
said building is still existed and managed by a
separate trust committee having 11 trustee;
6. the building of Seva Sadan is
situated in Circle No. 208, old holding no. 20 B,
New Holding no. 22, old ward no. 22 and New
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
5/11
ward no. 69, Sheet no. 263, Municipal Survey
plot no. 164 total and part of plot no. 163. A trust
deed was prepared in which the entire
management is being governed by the aforesaid
trust deed.”
5. The challenge in this writ petition is the
notification vide no. 5350 dated 21.03.2022 wherein while
constituting the Committee of ‘the Temple’, both ‘the
Temple’ and the Dharamshala were clubbed together.
(Annexure-2 to the petition)
6. The contention of the petitioners as put forward
by Mr. Sanjay Kumar is/are that ‘the Board’ do not have any
document to show that the Dharamshala at any point of time
was part of ‘the Temple’. The submission is that simply
because the office bearers of ‘the Temple’ also manned the
Dharamshala, ‘the Board’ assumed it to be part of ‘the
Temple’ and accordingly, passed the order.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel has
taken this Court to a report submitted by the Circle Officer,
Patna Sadar dated 21.09.2024 to show that two plots have
been separately recorded: one for the Shri Badi Devi Ji
Temple and the other for ‘the Dharamshala’ having khesra
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
6/11
nos. 163 and 164 respectively.
8. So far as the fresh constitution of committee is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
contrary to the order passed in CWJC No. 17322 of 2022
(Santosh Kumar Jha vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.),
persons who do not even belong to that area (Marufganj) and
actually resident of Vaishali have been made members.
10. The submission is that in that background, the
decision taken by ‘the Board’ has to go.
11. Learned Senior counsel for ‘the Board’, Mr.
Trivedi on the other hand has taken this Court to Section 32
of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (henceforth
for short ‘the Act’) which read as follows:
“32. Power of Board to settle schemes for
proper administration of religious trusts. - (1)
The Board may, of its own motion or on
application made to it in this behalf by two or
more persons interested in any trust,-
(a) settle a scheme for such religious trust after
making such enquiry as it thinks fit and giving
notice to the trustee of such trust and to such
other person as may appear to the Board to be
interested therein;
(b) in like manner and subject to the like
conditions, modify any scheme settled under this
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
7/11
Section or under any other law or substitute
another scheme in its stand:
Provided that any scheme so settled, modified or
substituted shall be in accordance with the law
governing the trust and shall not be contrary to
the wishes of the founder so far as such wishes
can be ascertained,
[and it may contain provisions for:-
(a) constituting a committee consisting of not
more than eleven persons for the purpose of
assisting in the whole or any part of the
administration of the religious trust,
(b) determining the powers and duties of such
committee; and
(c) any other relevant matter incidental to the
framing and functioning of such scheme.]
(2) A scheme settled, modified or substituted
instead of another scheme under this Section
shall unless otherwise ordered by the District
Judge on an application, if any, made under sub-
Section (3), come into force on a day to be
appointed by the Board in this behalf and shall
be published in the Official Gazette.
(3) The trustee of, or any other person interested
in, such trust may within three months from the
date of the publication in the Official Gazette of
the scheme so settled, modified or substituted
instead of another scheme, as the case may be
make an application to the District Judge for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
8/11
varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme;
but subject to the result of such application, the
order of the Board under sub-sections (1) and (2)
shall be final and binding upon the trustee of the
religious trust and upon every other person
interested in such religious trust.
(4) An order passed by the District Judge on any
application made under sub-section (3) shall be
final.”
12. Learned Senior counsel submits Section 32 (3)
of ‘the Act clearly records that these points raised by the
petitioners have to be raised before the District Judge, in this
case, the District Judge, Patna and cannot be adjudicated in
the writ jurisdiction.
13. Learned Senior counsel further submits so far as
question raised on the fresh constitution of the Committee is
concerned, following the Santosh Kumar Jha (supra) case,
‘the Board’ has already issued corrigendum vide letter no.
2587 dated 03.02.2026 which has been published in official
gazette which clearly shows it has been recorded that:
“(i) he/she should be part of the area
where ‘the Temple’ exist;
(ii) he/she do not have criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
9/11
antecedent;
(iii) if any of the statement filed by them
under affidavit is found to be incorrect,
immediate steps shall be taken in accordance
with law.”
14. Let the corrigendum/letter no. 2587 dated
03.02.2026 provided by the learned Senior counsel be kept on
record.
15. The submission is that an order has been passed,
the petitioner has all the power to approach the concerned
Court for the redressal of the grievance. ‘The Board’ on notice
shall also be presenting its view point whereafter an order can
be passed by the District Judge, Patna. He further undertakes
that if such notice comes, he will be presenting all the facts
before the concerned Court.
16. Mrs. Shama Sinha representing the Intervenor-
respondent submits that in line with the order passed in
Santosh Kumar Jha case (supra) wherein it has been
mandated that those with criminal activity cannot be part of
the committee, when it came to the light that the petitioner no.
1 has criminal antecedent, pursuant to the order of the Court,
he seized to serve as the member. She submits that in any
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
10/11
case, a new committee has been constituted by ‘the Board’ on
02.01.2026 and as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
counsel for ‘the Board’, all the points that the petitioners want
to raise has to be adjudicated under Section 32 of ‘the Act’.
17. Learned State counsel, Mr. Prashant Pratap
submits that on the one hand, the claim of the petitioner is that
the building is a separate entity, the stand of ‘the Board’ is that
it is part and parcel of ‘the Temple’, in that background, such
disputes/complicated assertions cannot be adjudicated in a
writ petition and ‘the Board’ has rightly taken a plea that the
matter should go to the concerned Court under ‘the Act’.
18. Having heard the parties and recording the
aforesaid facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that when
serious disputes have been raised one by the petitioner that
‘the Dharamshala’ is having a separate khesra/plot and is
manned, though by the same committee, it certainly cannot be
clubbed with ‘the Temple’, on the other hand, ‘the Board’
submits that it is part and parcel as a part of ‘the Temple’. In
that background, the Court is of the opinion that this dispute
has to be settled before an appropriate Court under Section 32
of ‘the Act’.
19. If the petitioners prefer any petition before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6567 of 2022(11) dt.13-02-2026
11/11
District Judge, Patna, the Court must take into account the
fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court while
taking up and deciding the limitation petition.
20. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…