R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) It is true that earlier the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed for default and the restoration application was also dismissed on the ground of limitation. Since it was not decided on merits, I am inclined to entertain this writ petition.
(2.) MR . B.K. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, with reference to the supplementary affidavit filed on 23.7.2007 submitted that according to the knowledge of the deponent, respondents No. 8. and 14 died and, therefore, their names may be omitted from the cause title of the writ petition. Let it be so done. - - The petitioner has challenged that part of the order dated 11.12.1998 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Mutation Revision No. 10 of 1996 by which he remanded the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Barhi to ascertain who is the actual Shebait of the temple in question. Mr. Prasad submitted that the revenue authority cannot decide such question.
(3.) A dispute was raised by respondeat/No. 4 to 14 as to who is the Shebait. The Sub -Divisional Officer in his order dated 10.4.1996 found that the petitioner was the Shebait but the revisional authority without considering such dispute on merits remanded the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer for deciding as to who is the actual Shebait. In any event, such question cannot be decided by the revenue authorities.;