D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 757 of 2006 dated 27-4-2016, whereby, the petition preferred by father of this appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge and hence, the present appellant, being son of the original petitioner, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. This appellant has also preferred I.A. No. 6370 of 2013 in the writ petition for the substitution, that was also rejected by the learned single Judge. In this Letters Patent Appeal also I.A. No. 6450 of 2017 has been preferred seeking leave to prefer an appeal. Leave to appeal is granted as this appellant is son of original Petitioner.
(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant has been adopted and accepted as a son by Govind Prasad Sharma, who is the original petitioner. This appellant is a biological son of the original petitioner also. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that though the appellant is a son of the original petitioner, but, for getting a right of Sewayat/Pujari of one temple viz. Hari Sabha Temple, situated in the district of Dumka as he has been adopted and accepted as his son. This appellant has been accepted as Ghrihast Chela. Though this appellant is the son of the original petitioner, nonetheless, the original petitioner has also accepted and adopted as Ghrihast Chela. After adopting all the Sanskar, according to Hindu Religion and Sanskriti of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka, this appellant is claiming to be Sewayat/Pujari of Hari Sabha Mandir and he wants to occupy the permises within the temple and is claiming himself to be a Trustee. This appellant is claiming that his father was also Sewayat/Pujari and/or Trustee. Hence, the constitution of the Trust Committee of Hari Sabha Mandir was under challenge. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon several documents, which are annexed with I.A. No. 6444 of 2017 as well as I.A. No. 3280 of 2016. On the basis of these documents, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that his father was also a Sewayat/Pujari and as his father has adopted this appellant as Ghrihast Chela, this appellant is also a Sewayat/ Pujari and/or Trustee. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Religious Trust Board while constituting a Trust Committee for Hari Sabha Mandir Trust, Dumka. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 2 (n) and Section 28(2)(s) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 and on the basis of these provisions of law, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant is a Trustee of Hari Sabha Mandir Trust, situated at Dumka. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that application has already been pending under Section 28(2)(s) of the Act, 1950, which is at Annexure-L/11 of I.A. No. 6450 of 2017. This application is pending before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board. On the basis of aforesaid documents, which are annexed with two interlocutory applications, it is submitted that the name of this appellant should have been included as a Trustee of the Hari Sabha Mandir Trust. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the father of this appellant, bearing W. P.(C) No. 757 of 2006 vide order dated 27-4-2016 nor these aspects have been appreciated by the learned single Judge while dismissing I. A. No. 6370 of 2013 preferred in W.P. (C) No. 757 of 2006. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this appellant is a Sewayat/ Pujari of Hari Sabha Mandir, Dumka. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the document, which is at Annexure-L/14 annexed with I.A. No. 6450 of 2017 and it is submitted that meeting of the committee has never convened and the decision has been taken. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that on the basis of Annexures-L/15 and L/16 annexed with I.A. No. 6450 of 2017,decision has been taken by the respondents not independently, but, at the behest of Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand.
(3.) Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that this appellant has failed to establish a right of Sewayat/Pujari. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand that original petitioner, who is the father of this appellant, was illegally occupying the premises of the temple, in question, as residential building. It is further submitted by the Additional Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand that this appellant is a practicing Advocate in Civil Court, Dumka and he has also illegally occupied the premises of temple and run his office and chambers in the said temple premises without any authority. Additional Advocate General has further submitted that post of Sewayat/Pujari is not a hereditary post. Power to appoint Sewayat/ Pujari is vested with the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board under the Act, 1950 and therefore, the present appellant is not entitled to be substituted in place of the original petitioner nor any leave to prefer an appeal can be given to this appellant. It is further submitted by Additional Advocate General that the Board is empowered to appoint fresh Sewayat/ Pujari on the basis of recommendations made by the Trust Committee. Additional Advocate General has also pointed out that the original petitioner was never appointed as Sewayat/Pujari and/or Trustee and hence, nothing can be percolated to his son, who is appellant. On the contrary, they are creating hindrances in performing rituals in the temple and they are illegaly using the temple premises as his residence. Additional Advocate General has further submitted that original petitioner as well as this appellant has relied upon the gazette notification dated 23-3-1994 of the Government of Bihar. Looking to this document, nothing is in favour of this appellant. In fact, by this notification, objections were invited from all the concerns. By virtue of this notification, neither any right was given in favour of father of this appellant nor in favour of this appellant. It is further submitted by the Additional Advocate General that neither trust deed is on record nor any document, which substantiate the contention of the original petitioner or this appellant that they were ever appointed as Trustee. Even a show-cause notice has been given to the original petitioner as well as to this appellant, who is a son, alleging that they are misusing the trust premises. Claim of this appellant has already been rejected vide minutes dated 5-6-2006, issued by the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Chairman. Hari Sabha Mandir Religious Trust Committee. It is further submitted by the Additional Advocate General that the aforesaid resolution has attained its finality because neither father nor son has ever challenged this resolution. It is further submitted by the Additional Advocate General that committee has already been constituted for the management of the Hari Sabha Mandir Trust and this committee is authorized to take a decision in the matter of removal of Sewayat/Pujari, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the Trust. Additional Advocate General has further submitted that as per Section 2 (n) of the Act, 1950, which defines "trustee". Neither the present appellant nor the originl petitioner has been able to substantiate the contention that they were ever appointed as Trustee. Similarly, neither the original petitioner nor this appellant has established that they were appointed as Trustee under the original trust deed. Thus, neither the original petitioner nor this appellant is the originl Trustee nor they were ever appointed as Trustee. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the original petitioner as well as while dismissing the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6370 of 2013, preferred by this appellant, in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 757 of 2006. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate General that this appellant has failed to prove that the post of Sewayat/ Pujari is a hereditary post in a religious public trust and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS;