- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Having regard to the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the State respondent that though three writ petitioners are being heard analogously, but the factual matrix of the respective petitions are not identical. Considering such, writ applications to be heard one after another on merit. Earlier orders stand modified. Today W.P.L.R.T. 581 of 2003 is taken up for hearing. The other two writ application to be heard on the next date, as and when this Bench will sit. Assailing the order dated 5th May, 2003, passed in O.A. No. 4207 of 2002 by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, this writ application, W. P. L. R. T. 581 of 2003, has been filed.
(3.) The impugned order passed in Original Application reads such: "O.A. No. 4207 of 2002 This application is directed against the order dated 13 8.2002 passed by the District Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad and the Appellate Authority under section 54 of the W.B.L.R. Act in Misc. Appeal case No. 100 of 2001 affirming the order of the Revenue Officer that the subject debattar is of private nature. Proceeding No.1/92/VC/DLLRO was taken under section 14T(6) of the Act to enquire into the question whether the debattar with Laksmi Narayan Jew as the deity and the applicant as the sebait is of public nature or private nature. THE Revenue Officer found that the deity is purely a family deity installed inside the building owned by the sebait and that the members of the public have no access to the building even, not to speak of the deity. THE R. O. also found on scrutiny of the audited accounts before him by the learned advocate appearing for the sebait that although the sebait had sold out by several deeds of 1974 huge land the sale proceeds did not feature in the accounts. THE R.O. held that the sebait had appropriated the sale proceeds for his personal use. Upon such findings he decided that the debattar is of private nature. Appeal was preferred against the order of the R.O. By the impugned order the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad and the Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the R.O. and upheld his decision. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that this is an absolute debattar and it was so held by the authority under section 6(1)(i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisation Act, and hence this debattar cannot be said to be of private nature. THE contention is misconceived. THE only requirement to extend the benefit under section 6(1)(i) of the E. A. Act was that the debattar was held exclusively for religious or charitable purpose or both. THE Scheme of the W.B.L.R. Act with regard to debattar land is different, it envisages only absolute debattar, but for determination of ceiling area it has prescribed different criterion. If on enquiry under section 14T(6) a debattar is found to be of public nature then the ceiling area will be determined under section 14M(6). And if it is of private nature then the provision of section 14M(5) will apply. It is, therefore, of little consequence that this is an absolute debattar. Accordingly to the scheme of the L.R. Act to determine whether a debatter is of exclusively religious or charitable or both in character is not enough. It has also to be determined whether the debattar is of public or private nature, and on the nature of the debattar would depend which provisions of section 14M will apply to the debattar land. THEre W48 no such scheme wider the W.B.E.A. Act and hence the decision under that Act has nothing to do with the decision under the provisions of Chapter IIB of the L.R. Act enjoying overriding effect by reason of section 14(T) over the provisions contained in other Acts. THE tests to be applied to decide whether a debattar is of public or private nature, have been laid down by the Supreme Court in two landmark decisions in Deoki Nandan v. Muralidhar, 1957 AIR(SC) 133 and Radhakanta Dev v. THE Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa, 1981 AIR(SC) 798 in the former case the Supreme Court observed that a deity through a justice person capable a holding properties cannot be said to be the beneficiary of an endowment in all cases. It is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner of the endowned properties and it only can have beneficial interest in the endowment. In the latter case it has been observed that under the Hindu Law it is not only permissible but also very common to have private endowments which through are meant for charitable purposes yet the dominant intention of the founder; is to install a family deity in the temple and worship the same in order to effectuate the spiritual benefit to the family of the founder and his desendants and to perpetuate the memory of the founder. In such cases, the property does not vest in the God but in the beneficiaries, who have installed the deity. One of the tests laid down in the above decisions is the place where the idol is installed. If it is installed inside the house of the sebait where the members of the public have no right to access,' then the idol is the family idol. THE members of the public have nothing to do with the worship of this idol. In the instant case, the idol stands installed inside he palace known as, 'Rajbari' owned by the sebait and the members of the public have full right to get into this palace to worship the idol. Hence, it is out and out a family idol of the Nandys. Another test laid down by the Supreme Court is that while in a public debattar the beneficiaries are not definite, the beneficiary of a private debattar is definite. In the instant case the only beneficiary is the sebait who appropriate the sale proceeds by transferring lands belonging to the deity. He and his family are the only beneficiaries of the property standing in the name of the deity. This is nothing but a device to keep property in the "benami" of the deity. We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding. THE Revenue Officer has correctly decided the question under section 14T(6) of the Act and the Appellate Authority has rightly affirmed his finding. THE order of the Appellate Authority is hereby affirmed. THE application is dismissed." The said Original Application arose out of challenge of the order dated 13th August, 2002, passed by District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad in an appeal under section 54 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, registered as Miscellaneous Appeal Case No. 100 of 2001, who affirmed the order of the concerned Revenue Officer dated 14th October, 1992. By the order dated 14th October, 1992, the concerned Revenue Officer on holding an enquiry held that the debattar property of Sri Sri Lakshmi Narayan Jew Deb Thakur was the private debattar, as such the sebaits were not entitled to have any relief so far as exclusion of the debattar property from the respective ceiling limit of holding the land under section 14(M) of the said Act. An appeal was preferred against that order by the present writ petitoners. Appellate authority confirmed the decision. It appears from the order that the appellate authority in the said Appeal Case No. 100 of 2001, further held an enquiry through the officers of L.R. department on 21st June, 2002, and report of the said enquiry was relied upon by him to dismiss the appeal and thereby to confirm the order of the Revenue Officer concerned, appealed against. Assailing the order of the appellate authority as aforesaid, the Original Application No. 4207 of 2002 was filed. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of the records came to the finding that the order impugned was justified and dismissed the original application.;