Mohan Chandra Malakar And Anr vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010216482024

2026:GAU-AS:15725-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : PIL/68/2024
MOHAN CHANDRA MALAKAR AND ANR
SON OF LATE RISHAB CHANDRA MALAKAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 HAJO,
P.O. AND P.S.- HAJO,
DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.
2: TILAK CHANDRA DAS
SON OF LATE UMESH DAS

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 HAJO

P.O. AND P.S.- HAJO

DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
GUWAHATI- 781001.
3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP
ASSAM
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI- 781031.

Page No.# 2/11
4:CIRCLE OFFICER
HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN -781102.
5:SIBA PRASAD SARMA
DOLOI OF SHREE SHREE HAYAGRIVA MADHAB MANDIR TEMPLE
MANAGING COMMITTEE
HAJO

DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781102.
RESIDING AT- HARABALA PATH (OPPOSITE BORA SERVICE)

ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-3.
6:PRESIDENT
PANCHATIRTHA BARDEWRI SAMAJ
HAJO
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781102
– B E F O R E –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.P.
Dutta and Ms. P. Sarma, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department for respondent No.1.

: Ms. D. Mahanta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H. K. Das, Senior
Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauahti High Court for
respondent No. 2.
: Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government
Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

Page No.# 3/11

Date on which judgment
is reserved : 09.10.2026.

Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 15.10.2026.

Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : No .

Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes .

UDGMENT RDER
J & O (CAV)
( K. Goswami, J )

We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta and Ms. P. Sarma, learned Advocates for the
petitioners; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department for respondent No. 1; Ms. D.
Mahanta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. H. K. Das,
learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for
respondent No. 2 and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior
Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2] The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India questioning the failure on the part of the
respondent authority in taking appropriate steps to manage the affairs of
the Hayagriva Madhab Temple, Hajo (hereinafter referred to as the “Hajo
temple”). The petitioner, inter alia , puts to challenge the orders dated

Page No.# 4/11
24.04.2013 (Annexure-14) and 25.03.2014 (Annexure-17) passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, wherein he refused to
constitute the Managing Committee of the Hajo temple under the
provision of Section 25-A of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands
Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959
and to take over the management of the said Hajo temple thereof.
3] The petitioners, who are the local residents of the Hajo area,
contend that the management of the Hajo temple is governed by a
scheme settled pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.11.1908
passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 1904. They further contend that, following the
enactment of Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or
Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to
as the “1959 Act”) , the management of religious or charitable institutions
receiving annuities from the Government became subject to the
constitution of a Managing Committee under Section 25-A of the said
Act, headed by the Deputy Commissioner.
According to the petitioners, the existing management scheme,
founded on the decree of 1908, has become outdated and is no longer
legally sustainable in view of the subsequent statutory enactment. It is in
this backdrop that the present public interest litigation has been
instituted, seeking a direction for the constitution of a Managing
Committee in accordance with Section 25-A of the 1959 Act and for
ensuring the proper management and administration of the Hajo temple
and its endowments.
4] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

Page No.# 5/11
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the
issue to be determined in the instant PIL is whether the earlier scheme
settled by the Civil Court is to be superseded by a Managing Committee
constituted under Section 25-A of the 1959 Act.
Section 25-A of the 1959 Act, inserted by the Assam Act No. XIX of
1987, provides for the constitution of a Managing Committee for religious
or charitable institutions of a public nature to have a control over the
matter of utilisation of the annuity and verification of the proper
maintenance of the Institution.
5] Section 2(h) of the said Act defines “Religious or Charitable
Institutions of Public Nature” as follows :
“ (h) Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature’ shall include
Satras, Maths, Public Temples, Public Wakf (that is to say, Wakfs other
than Wakf-alal-aulad) including Public Mosques and Durgahs,
Gurudwaras, Churches or similar institutions or endowments for public
purposes of charitable or religious nature.”
6] Section 25-A of the 1959 Act provides for the constitution of a
Managing Committee in the following terms : -
“ 25-A. Constitution of the Managing Committee .- For each of the
Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature, a Managing
Committee shall be constituted with the following members to have' a
control over the matter of utilisation of the annuity and verification of the
proper maintenance of the Institution-
a) The Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional officer or his nominee
President;
(b) An Ex-Officio Secretary to be elected by the Deuries/Bor Deuries;
(c) 5 (five) elected members to be elected from amongst the devotees.
The term of the Committee shall be for three years from the date of

Page No.# 6/11
its constitution]”
7] A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the
Managing Committee contemplated under Section 25-A is intended to
exercise control over the utilisation of the annuity payable to the religious
or charitable institution and to verify the proper maintenance of the
institution, including the maintenance and verification of accounts
relating to such funds. The provision was introduced to ensure proper
financial management, accountability and transparency in the utilisation
of public funds. However, the constitution of such a statutory committee
does not, by itself, confer upon it general or unrestricted authority over
every aspect of the affairs and management of the temple.
8] In Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. :: (2015) 9
SCC 461 , the Apex Court clarified the scope and ambit of Section 25-A
of the 1959 Act and held that the powers of the Managing Committee
constituted thereunder are limited to the matters specified in the
provision. The Apex Court held that the statutory committee cannot
assume unrestricted control over the affairs of a temple or override
established customary rights beyond the scope of the statute. The
relevant observations of the Apex Court in the afore-noted case are
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 28. It appears that at least for a brief period the District Judge, the
District Administration as well as the High Court had acted under
misconception and confusion to equate the limited supervisory role of
the statutory Committee under Section 25A of the Act with the rights of
the Bordeoris and their representative, the Dolois to manage the
religious as well as secular activities of the Kamakhya Temple, a public
religious institution.

Page No.# 7/11
29. The scope and amplitude of Section 25A was wrongly not
touched upon by the learned Single Judge. The earlier Division Bench
Judgment had merely affirmed the constitutionality of this provision at
the instance of another religious institution but had no occasion to
weigh the powers of the statutory Committee vis-à-vis the customary
rights of Bordeori Samaj and its elected representatives, the Dolois.
The Division Bench, therefore rightly examined the width and scope of
powers of customary trustees – The Bordeories and their elected agent,
the Dolois considering all the relevant materials and custom, it
committed no error in upholding their right to take care of management
of secular as well as religious affairs of the Kamakhya Temple.
30. The powers of the Bordeories and Dolois has not been taken
away or adversely affected by the Act as it stood earlier or even after
Section 25A was inserted. The reasons and objects of introducing the
statutory Committee under Section 25A as noted by the Division Bench
in paragraph 111 of the judgment under appeal and extracted earlier
in this judgment categorically clarify that it was (i) ‘to have control over
the annuity’ and (ii) ‘to verify and audit the accounts to the satisfaction
of the concerned authority.’ The statutory Committee under Section
25A is therefore concerned only with the annuity payable or paid
under the Act to the Head of the Institution and not with its ownership
or management. The words – ‘….. and verification of the proper
maintenance of Institution.’ in Section 25A have to be understood in the
background of all other provisions of the Act including the objects and
reasons for the Amending Act No. XIX of 1987. In that light, the power
of the Committee is indeed quite limited to verification of the proper
maintenance of accounts of the Institution concerned and that too
relating only to utilization of the annuity and other government grants
under the Act, if any. Favouring the statutory Committee with powers
to manage or oversee even only the secular aspect of management of
the Institution will not only run counter to the objects and reasons for
the Amending Act of 1987, it shall create an undesirable diarchy when
the Act does not divest the Bordeories and Dolois of their customary
powers, roles and rights. Hence we have no difficulty in accepting the
contention of most of the parties that Section 25A postulates a
Committee with limited role - only to exercise control over annuity and
other grants under the Act and its proper accounting, if and when
utilized, through the power of verification of relevant accounts for
proper maintenance of Institutions.”

Page No.# 8/11
9] Viewed in this light, the Managing Committee constituted under
Section 25-A of the 1959 Act has a limited statutory role, confined to
supervising the utilisation of the annuity and other Government grants
payable under the Act and verifying the relevant accounts to ensure
proper financial management and maintenance of the institution. The
said provision does not, in the absence of any express provision or
necessary statutory implication to that effect, have the effect of
displacing the existing customary rights or transferring the entire
management and administration of the institution to the statutory
Managing Committee.
10] In the present case, the Hajo temple in question is a religious
institution of a public nature and is in receipt of annuity from the State
Government. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 25-A of the 1959 Act
are attracted to the extent of the matters contemplated therein.
11] It appears from the materials on record that, as far back as in the
year 1904, the Shebaits of the Hajo temple instituted Title Suit No. 3 of
1904 before the learned District Court, alleging, inter alia ,
misappropriation of temple properties by the then Doloi . By judgment
and decree dated 09.11.1908, the learned District Court, upon finding
that the temple required improvement and was not being managed as
satisfactorily as they ought to have been, settled a scheme for the
management and administration of the temple. The said scheme was
subsequently approved by the High Court, subject to the incorporation of
a provision empowering the District Court to modify the scheme.
Thereafter, an appeal arising out of the proceedings was disposed of by

Page No.# 9/11
the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, by order dated
17.03.1917, on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the
contesting parties, whereunder the scheme was finally settled. The said
scheme continued to govern the management of the temple, subject to
such subsequent modifications as were made by the competent court
from time to time.
12] Subsequently, following the insertion of Section 25-A into the Act, a
socio-cultural organisation submitted a representation dated 12.07.2012
before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, seeking implementation of
the said provision in respect of the Hajo temple and constitution of the
statutory Managing Committee under the supervision of the competent
authority.
13] However, by the impugned orders dated 24.04.2013 and 25.03.2014,
the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner declined to take over the
management of the said Hajo temple in view of the decree passed in
Title Suit No. 3 of 1904 and the subsisting scheme of management framed
by the Civil Court and to constitute the Managing Committee under
Section 25-A of the 1959 Act thereof.
14] Upon consideration of the statutory provisions and the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in Riju Prasad Sarma (supra), it is evident that
the existence of a scheme of management framed by a Civil Court does
not, by itself, dispense with the statutory obligation to constitute a
Managing Committee under Section 25-A of the Act in respect of a
qualifying religious or charitable institution receiving annuity under the

Page No.# 10/11
Act.
15] The statutory committee contemplated under Section 25-A is not
intended to take over the entire management of the Hajo temple or to
displace the subsisting scheme of management or any customary rights
recognised by law. Its role is confined to exercising control over the
utilisation of the annuity and other government grants, if any, payable
under the 1959 Act, and to verifying the relevant accounts to ensure
proper financial management and maintenance of the institution.
16] In view of the aforesaid , the existence of the Civil Court’s scheme
cannot, in itself, constitute a sufficient ground for the respondent
authorities to decline the discharge of their statutory obligations under
Section 25-A. The competent authority is required to take appropriate
steps for constitution of the statutory Managing Committee in
accordance with the provisions of the 1959 Act, while ensuring that such
constitution and functioning remain within the limited statutory mandate
and do not interfere with the subsisting scheme of management or lawful
customary rights beyond what the Act permits.
17] Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.04.2013 and 25.03.2014
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, to the extent
of not taking steps for constitution of the statutory Managing Committee,
are liable to be interfered with. Ordinarily, it is not for this Court to issue a
direction requiring the State to perform a statutory function. However,
having regard to the failure of the respondent authorities to act in
accordance with the mandate of Section 25-A of the 1959 Act and

Page No.# 11/11
considering the issues of public importance raised in the present Public
Interest Litigation, we are of the considered view that appropriate
directions are warranted to ensure compliance with the statutory
provisions.
18] It is, accordingly, directed that the respondent authorities, more
particularly the District Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, shall constitute
the Managing Committee for Hayagriva Madhab Temple, Hajo, in terms
of Section 25-A of the 1959 Act, within a period of 1 (one) month from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, clarified
that the constitution of such Managing Committee shall not, by itself,
render the earlier scheme framed by the Civil Court inoperative or have
the effect of superseding the same in its entirety. The said scheme shall
continue to operate to the extent that it remains legally in force, unless
modified or set aside by a competent Court. In the event of any
inconsistency between the provisions of the earlier scheme and any
mandatory provision of the Act, the latter shall prevail to the extent of
such inconsistency.
19] With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant PIL stands
disposed off.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Pranab
Chandr
a Das
Digitally signed
by Pranab
Chandra Das
Date: 2026.10.15
14:39:37 +05'30'