RAM JANKIJEE DEITIES AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 11-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM JANKIJEE DEITIES AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
MAY 11, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Hindu law: 
Deity-Whether a Juridical person-Two separate deeds of dedication 
C executed which a dedicating landed properties to deities located in two 
separate temples situated with the area of the land and put in possession 
through shebaits-Land ceiling-Claim for two separate units-Entitlement 
of-Held, both the deities are separate juristic entitled to individual grant-
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus 
D Land) Act, 1961. 
Idols and Deities-Images of-Swayarr.bhu or self-Existent and 
Pratisthita or established-No concept of fake deity existing in Hindu Law--
God being formless and shapeless, its presence is felt not by reason of a 
particular form or image but by reason of the presence of the Omnipotent-
E Hindu Law recognising Hindu idol as a juridical subject being capable in 
law of holding property in the same way as that of a natural person-It is 
not a particular image which is a juridical person but it is a particular bent 
of mind which consecrate the image. 
F 
Judicial Propriety:-When there was an existing order of the Division 
Bench, Single Judge dealing with the matter ought to have referred to the 
same, more so when a contra view is being expressed-It is a matter of 
Judicial efficacy and propriety though not a mandatory requirement of law--
Practice and Procedure. 
G 
A Mahanth executed two separate deeds of dedication thereby dedicating 
landed properties to two deities Ram Jankijee and Thakur Raja to the extent 
of81.14 acres of land and were put in possession through the shebaits. The 
two deities were located in two separate temples situated within the area of 
the land. After the death of the Mahan th, petitioner No 3 became the shebait 
of both the deities. The properties of the deities were also duly registered 
H and enlisted with the Religious Trust Board and were under its control and 
442 
R.J. DEITIES v. ST ATE 
443 
guidance. 
A 
On the basis of an Inquiry Report, the Deputy Collector in the matter 
of fixation of ceiling area, allowed two units to tbe deities and declared only 
five acres as excess land to be vested on to the State under Bihar Land 
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 
1961. The Collector of the District, however, held that the entitlement of the B 
trust would be one unit only. The revision petition subsequent thereto was 
rejected on the ground of being hopelessly barred by the laws of limitation. ' 
Against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, wherein the rights and 
contentions of the appellants to hold two units for two separate deities were 
rejected, the appellant moved the High Court by way of a writ petition. The C 
High Court allowed the said petition granting the relief of two units as 
claimed by the petitioner. The judgment of the High Court became final and 
binding between the parties by reason of there being no appeal .there from. 
Subsequently, after about two years, a writ petition was filed before this 
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for issuance of a mandatory order D 
as regards the allotment order in favour of the petitioner therein. The matter 
was, however, remitted to the High Court with a direction that the said 
petition be treated as a review petition. 
In terms of the direction of this Court, the revision petition was placed E 
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The said petition was, allowed 
by the High Court and earlier was recalled. The matter was however, directed 
to be listed before the appropriate bench but the same was not placed in the 
list or heard for over two years. Finally the matter came up for hearing 
before the Single Judge who rejected the contention of the petitioner. Hence 
the present appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that there was a Division 
Bench judgment recording therein the entitlement of the appellants for 
exemption and judicial propriety required one Single Judge to follow a 
binding precedent of an earlier Division Bench judgment from the same G 
High Court and more so, in the same matter. The issue was no longer res 
integra and open for further discussion, but the Single Judge decided the 
issue once again notwithstanding the earlier finding as regards Idols' 
entitlement. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.