JUDGMENT N. Panhey, J. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of Collector, Munger, dated 15.1.1990 (Anuexure-2) and also restraining the respondents from making any settlement of the tank, bearing Plot No. 2403 Mauza-Ghosaith, P.S. Surajgarha. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that his ancestors had got the tank dug over the plot in question. A temple was also constructed on the embankment of the tank. The petitioner including the villagers, after taking bath in the said tank, used to worship in the temple. In the year 1989 the petitioner learn that the tank in question was settled with respondent no. 4 for fishing. The petitioner filed an objection before the Collector, Munger, stating, inter alia, that the said tank never vested with the State. The settlement of the tank for fishery would create hindrance to the general people in taking bath and performing Puja. In was also indicated that if the fishing is allowed in the said tank, the water would become muddy and start stinking. It will be difficult for the public to use the water of the tank. 3. The respondent Collector called for a report from the Hala Karmchari and Circle Inspector; consequent thereto a report dated 11.5.1989 was submitted. In the report it was indicated that thousands of people, after taking bath in the said tank, used to offer water to the deities installed in the temple besides the aforesaid the villagers used to perform Chhath festival at the said tank. 4. The respondent-Collector by his order dated 15.1.1990 (Annexure-2) rejected the objection, filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the order aforesaid, it was said that the tank in question has been recorded as Gair Majarua Anr. and since last several years it was being settled for fishery. 5. No counter affidavit in this case has been filed on behalf of the State or respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, a petition for vacating the order of stay, which has been treated as counter affidavit, was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. It has been stated that the tank in question has been settled by the Collector-cum-Chairman. Fish Farmers Development Agency, Munger, for the period of ten years with effect from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1994. 2 and 3. However, a petition for vacating the order of stay, which has been treated as counter affidavit, was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. It has been stated that the tank in question has been settled by the Collector-cum-Chairman. Fish Farmers Development Agency, Munger, for the period of ten years with effect from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1994. It has been stated that the petitioner himself wanted to take settlement but the same was not settled with him. The general public of the area have no objection to the said settlement. A report of the Anchal Adhikari, Surajgarha, has also been brought on the record as Annexure-D. In the said report it has been submitted that the tank in question is being regularly settled since the year 1956 and no objection was ever raised by any person. Respondent no. 4, after taking settlement, has spent huge amount over the tank for development of the fishery. It bas been also stated that the tank in question is situated over Plot No. 2403 and surrounded by a Bhinda while temple itself stands on a separate Plot no. 2401. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have no right to settle the tank in question. The settlement with respondent no. 4 is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 25 and 29 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner and the villagers have got their religious right to take bath in the said tank and offer water to the deities; The religion is the matter of faith. It is an integral part of the religion of the petitioner to observe rituals, ceremonies and other modes of worship. The respondents cannot be allowed to take away or create any obstacle in performance of the petitioner's religious right. It has been stated that the Karmchari and Circle Inspector, after holding local inspection, in their reports also supported the claim of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the order of the Collector and the settlement, made in favour of the respondent no. 4 is contrary to the executive instruction (Annexure-3), issued by the department of Revenue, Government of Bihar. In the said instruction, it has been laid down that the tanks, which are being used by the general public, should not be settled for pisci culture and fishing right. 4 is contrary to the executive instruction (Annexure-3), issued by the department of Revenue, Government of Bihar. In the said instruction, it has been laid down that the tanks, which are being used by the general public, should not be settled for pisci culture and fishing right. In support or the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed over a decision in the case of Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao v. Collectors Ongle and another, reported in 1969 S.C. 563. In the said judgment it was held as follows : "From the above discussion it is seen that under Hindu Law a tank can be an object of charity and when a dedication is mace in favour of a tank, the same is considered as a charitable institution. It is not necessary for our present purpose to decide whether that institution can also be considered as a juristic person. Once we come to the conclusion that the Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an Inam in favour of the "uracheruvu" (tank) that tank must be considered as a charitable institution under the Act. Consequently after the abolition of the loam, the Inam property gets itself converted into Royatwari property, of the' uracheruvu", to be managed by its manager. Admittedly the appellant is its present manager. Hence the property to question has to be registered in the name of the tank but it will continue to be managed by the appellant so long as he continues to be its manager." The facts of the present case are quite different. No document has been brought on the record to show that the tank in question was dedicated by the Ex-Landlord or by the State of Bihar to the petitioner and the villagers for their use and performance of religious functions. In absence of any evidence or document it is difficult to hold the petitioner's fundamental right over the tank. 7. It has been further contended that no authority can curtail the freedom of religion and the petitioner's belief in it. The petitioner and the villagers have complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rights and ceremonies are essential according to them. In support of the aforesaid, reliance has been placed over a decision in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shivur Matt, reported in 1954 S.C. 282. The petitioner and the villagers have complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rights and ceremonies are essential according to them. In support of the aforesaid, reliance has been placed over a decision in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shivur Matt, reported in 1954 S.C. 282. It is not necessary to discuss the facts of the said case. Admittedly, every body his got freedom of religion in our Constitution. It is not confined to religious belief only rather it extends to religious practice, subject to restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down under Article 26 (8). 8. Now the question remains to be answered as to what would be the effect of settlement which, according to the learned counsel, is in violation of the provision of the executive instruction, as contained in Annexure-3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 pointed out that the settlement in question was made in the year 1983. The executive instruction (Annexure-3), prescribing certain guidelines, was issued on 26th of December, 1986. There is nothing in the said instruction to indicate that it will have any retrospective effect. There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. In my view also the guidelines, issued under Annexure-3, would not affect in any way the settlement in question, which was already made in the year 1983. Nothing has been brought on the record to suggest that except the instruction, as contained in Annexure-3, there was any such restriction, imposed by the State Government, in making the settlement with respect to such tank. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent no. 4 and the State, submitted that the petitioner has not been able to prove the controversial question of fact by evidence. Admittedly, the right of the petitioner has not been adjudicated by any court of competent jurisdiction. 9. I also find myself in quite agreement with the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents that on the basis of the facts, pleaded in the writ petition, which are not supported by any evidence, it is difficult for this Court, while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, to record a finding that the petitioner has got religious and customary right over the tank in question. In support of the aforesaid reliance can be placed over a decision in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1988 S.C. 2181. In the aforesaid case it has been held that in a writ petition the pleading must be supported by the document annexed with the writ petition. There is a difference between the pleading in a plaint or a written statement. There the evidence is not required to be pleaded. But in a writ petition or in a counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be impleaded and annexed to it. In the present case, as I have noticed that admittedly, the tank in question has been recorded as Gair Majarua Am. It is also apparent that the tank in question is being settled since the year 1956. 10. In view of the disputed questions of facts as also in absence of any evidence, it is difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present case. As I have already indicated above that no benefit under the guide-line, issued by the State Government under Annexure-3 can be extended to the petitioner because the settlement in question was made much earlier before the issuance of the guide-line. However, it will be open to the petitioner to get his right and interest decided by the Collector or by any other competent authority after the settlement in question is over. The respondents have agreed that general public including the petitioner will have every right to take bath in the tank and offer its water to the deities. 11. In the result, with the observations, aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.