STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SRI SRI LAKSHMI JANARDAN THAKUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 21-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SRI SRI LAKSHMI JANARDAN THAKUR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 2!, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
.. 
Religious and Charitable Endowments: 
Public and private endowment-Distinction between-Relevant factors c 
for determining character of an endowment-Discussed-On facts, land held 
by deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur-Question related to whether 
endowment was of a public or private nature-High Court held that 
endowment was of private nature-Held: High Court did not consider the 
factual position in proper perspective and did not refer to several relevant 
documents and materials-Matter remitted back for re-consideration-West D 
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955-Sections 14M(5) & (6) and 14T(6) & (9). 
The Revenue Officer disposed of enquiry proceedings under Section 
14T(6) &(9) and 14M (5) & (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 
allowing the deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur to retain 24.22 acres 
of land and directing vesting of rest of the land in the State. It further held E 
that the endowment was of a public nature exclusively for charitable and 
religious purpose and therefore was entitled to retain 7 standard hectares of 
land in terms of Section 14M(6) of the Act. Appellate Authority as well as the 
Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Officer. 
High Court however set aside the orders passed by the authorities below F 
holding that the dedication was not made for the use or benefit of public at 
large or even a specified class of it and, therefore, the endowment was of a 
private nature. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court G 
HELD: I.I. Religious endowments are of two kinds, public and private. 
In a public endowment, the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public at 
large or a specified class. But when property is set apart for the worship of 
841 
i 
H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A a family god, in which the public are not interested, the endowment is a private 
one. It is a question of fact whether a temple is a private or a public one. The 
extent of properties belonging to the temple, the course of conduct of the 
devotees, the supervision exercised by the founder and his descendants whether 
the rents and profits are exclusively utilised for the temple for a long period 
B 
are relevant factors to be taken into consideration whether a temple is a public 
one or a private one as also public visiting the temple for Darshan and worship, 
appearance of the temple, association of members of public with the 
management and earlier statements or admission of parties. 
[846-H; 847-A, Bf 
C 
1.2. In order to ascertain whether a trust is private, following factors 
are relevant: (1) If the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals; (2) If the 
grantor has been made in favour of an individual and not in favour of a deity; 
(3) The temple is situated within the campus of the residence of the donor; 
(4) If the revenue records or entries suggest the land being in possession of 
an individual and not in the deity. On the other hand an inference can be drawn 
D that the temple along with the properties attached to it is a public trust: (1) If 
the public visit tht: temple as of right; (2) If the endowment is the name of the 
deity; (3) The beneficiaries are the public; (4) If the management is made 
through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being 
scrutinized by the public. [847-C-FI 
E 
2. A bare reading ufthe High Court's judgment show that factual position 
has not been considered in its proper perspective and in fact High Court has 
not referred to several relevant documents and materials. The High Court 
does not appear to have considered all the relevant aspects and has come to 
abrupt conclusion. In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to set aside 
F the order of the High (,ourt and remand the matter to it for consideration 
afresh. (847-G; 848-G, Hf 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3563 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.2003 of the High Court of 
G Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. No. IOI of2003. 
Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellants. 
Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumr Gupta, A.N. Bardiyar, B.K. Shahi and S.B. 
Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
H 
• 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SRI SRI LAKSHMI JANARDAN THAKUR [PASAYAT,J.] 843 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, 

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