Abhiram Singh v. The Bihar State Board Of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg Patna
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Sep 2012
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ Application stands disposed off with
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Ram Kripal Yadav, the Chairman, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna
The Circle Officer, Triveniganj, Anchal Triveniganj, Supaul 4. Sri Jagdish Yadav, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Jag Narayan Yadav, son of Sri Mauji Lal Yadav, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Bhubneshwari Sah, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Upendra Singh, son of Late Hari Ballav Narayan Singh, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Birendra Singh, son of late Subodh Narayan Singh, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Bhupendra Narayan Sigh, son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District – Supaul
Sri Amrendra Singh, son of Late Bakund Singh, resident of village – Jadiya, Tola-Fulkaha, Police Station – Jadiya, District - Supaul .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar - 1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi Mr. Madan Mohan For BSBRT: : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AC to SC-17 For the State =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-09-2012 *************** After the death of Mahanth Anant Das, the respondents, especially the President / Chairman of the Board of Religious Trust passed an order, contained in Annexure- 1, constituting a Committee to look after the trust property. This was seriously contested by the petitioner, claiming himself to be the rightful owner, by virtue of a deed of adoption, contained in Annexure- 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2001 dt.24-09-2012 and claiming the property to be a private property and not a public trust property.
Operative part
The Court have stayed the operation of the order, contained in Annexure- 1 and somewhere down the line, the Writ Application was also admitted for hearing. Counsel, representing the Board has serious objection to the validity of the adoption in question, because the petitioner is said to be 28 years of age, when he was adopted, which is directly in conflict with section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It may not be required to go into that aspect of the matter looking at the nature of this Order, which is going to be passed by this Court in the sense that let the petitioner appear before the President / Chairman of the Board, and shall place all the evidences, he has, in support of his claim and the issue will be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Religious Trust Act, after hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity. The decision in this regard must be taken at the earliest, provided the petitioner appears before the President / Chairman with a copy of this Order within a period of four weeks from today by taking up the representations of the petitioner, which is pending before Patna High Court CWJC No.4474 of 2001 dt.24-09-2012 them and no action could be taken in view of the Stay Order. Writ Application stands disposed off with observation as above. Till then the status quo in this regard will be maintained by both the parties. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court Dated : 24.09.2012 Shashi Kant Mishra NAFR /-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Application stands disposed off with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 — s. 10; Religious Trust Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 24 Sep 2012. The bench was AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.