THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS & ANR. versus VISHWANATH PRASAD LOHIA & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 954 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS & ANR. 
B 
v. 
VISHWANA TH PRASAD LOHIA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
IS.B.SINHAANDHARJITSINGHBEDI,JJ.J 
Bihar State Board Religious Trust Act, 1950-Section 29(2)-
Notification under-Issuance of-Quashed b)l High Court holding that 
C Notification not in terms of s 29(2) and civil suit involving same question 
pending trial-On appeal, held: Finding of High Court correct that there 
was no evidence to show that the notices had been served under s. 29(2)-
Civil suit with regard to similar issue pending in Civil Court, Thus, appeals 
dismissed but status-quo as existing to continue till final disposal of pending 
matter. 
D 
Notification was issued under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bihar 
., State Board Religious Trust Act, 1950 whereby the committee was com:tituted 
on the basis of the trust deed. High Court held that the Notification was not 
in terms ofsection.29(2); that scheme under section 32 was not in accordance 
with law; and that the civil suit involving same question was pending trial, 
E and quashed the Notification. Hence these appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The notice given to the committee proposing supersession is 
a composite one under section 29(2) and section 32 of the Bihar State Board 
F Religious Trust Act, 1950. The finding of the High Court that there was no 
evidence to show that the notices had been served under section 29(2) cannot 
be seriously challenged. The Civil Suit with regard to the validity of the trust 
is pending in the Civil Court. It is directed that the status quo as exists today 
would continue till the disposal of the matters. !Para 31 [956-A, BJ 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5880 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.1991 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 3510of1991. 
954 
{ 
BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS v. V.P. LOHIA [H.S. BED!, J.] 955 
WITH 
A 
C.A. No. 5879 of2000. 
K.B. Rohtagi, Aparna Rohtagi and S.K. Dhingra for the Appellant. 
H.L. Agrawal, Irshad Ahmad and Laksmi Raman Singh for the B 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Bihar 
State Board of Religious Trusts etc. impugning the judgment of the Division C 
Bench of the Patna High Court dated 27.9.1991 quashing the Notification 
dated 5.8.1989 issued under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Bihar State 
Board Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the "Act") whereby the 
committee said to have been constituted on the basis of the trust deed dated 
26.9.1983. 
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants herein 
,• 
that the requisite notice under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act had 
been issued to the committee prior to its supersession and as such the 
impugned judgment holding to the contrary was not correct. We however find 
D 
that the notice given to the committee proposing supersession is a composite E 
one under section 29(2) and section 32 of the Act. The High Court has found 
that the said Notification (Annexure-3) dated 5th August 1989 was not in 
accordance with the provisions or in terms of section 29 of the Act and did 
not also meet the parameters of the scheme which have been formulated later 
under section 32. It had also come during the course of the hearing before 
the High Court that Civil Suit No. 207/1986 seeking a declaration, inter-alia, F 
that the trust deed dated 26th September 1983 was a void document as well 
as several other issues was pending trial. The Division Bench opine_d that as 
the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court it would not be necessary 
or appropriate to go into the questions raised before the Civil Court but in 
so far as the aforesaid Notification was concerned it having been issued 
under section 29(2) of the Act without giving a proper hearing to the committee G 
and the scheme under section 32 of the Act being not in accordance with law 
was liable to be quashed. It is in this situation, the present appeals have been 
filed by the Board. 
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through H 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A the record and in particular the notices allegedly given to the committee 
before its supersession as also the scheme framed under section 32 of the 
Act. We note the finding of the High Court that there was no evidence to 
show that the notices had 

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