Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -this application is directed against a notice issued by the Collector. Sitamarhi whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to appear before his court on 12-10-1992 to show cause as to why the land ceiling proceeding should not be reopened under Sec.45-B of the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as as the said Act ). 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner No.4 is said to be sevait of the deities located in three temples (petitioners No.1 to 3 in this application), situated at different places in the district of Sitamarhi ; one at village Paktola, the second at village Paktola Shatoliya and third in village Rikhaulia. It is stated that there are three deities, namely Ram Janki, Lakshman Jee and Hanuman jee, in the temple situated at village Paktola. Similarly in another temple of jhula Biharijee. the deities of Ramjee, Lakshman Jee and Hanuman Jee have been installed. In the temple at village Rakhaulia also the deities of Ram Jee, janki Jee and Lakshman Jee had been installed. 4. A land ceiling proceeding being land ceiling case No.5/70-71 was initiated against the petitioner No.4. By an order dated 1-5-1971 the said proceeding was dropped. 5. Another land ceiling case No.12/70-71 was also initiated which related to the Trust Properties. The said properties were possessed by mahanth under Bihar State Religious Trust Board. In the year 1973 again a land ceiling case No.6/73-74 was initiated against the Mahanth Sri Sundar das. Thereafter another Land Ceiling Case No.5/75 was initiated against mahanth Ram Swaroop Das and notice was also issued under Sec.8 (1) of the Act on 6-6-1975. 6. It is stated that both the land Ceiling Case No.5/75 and 6/73-74 were amalgamated as the said Mahanth Sri Ram Swaroop Das died leaving behind the petitioner as his Chela. A draft publication was issued and published in the Gazette on 12-2-1977. In the said draft publication 14.94 acres of Class II land equal to 24.90 acres of Class IV land and 177.82 acres of Class IV land total being 202.72 acres of Class IV land was shown to be held by the petitioner. A draft publication was issued and published in the Gazette on 12-2-1977. In the said draft publication 14.94 acres of Class II land equal to 24.90 acres of Class IV land and 177.82 acres of Class IV land total being 202.72 acres of Class IV land was shown to be held by the petitioner. It is also stated that further 9.25 acrees of class II lands equivalent to 15.4 ; acres of Class IV land and 6.50 acres of class IV lands, i e 21.92 acres was allowed to be held by the land holder as agriculture land and 141.65 acres of Class IV lands were declared as surplus. 7. The petitioners in the aforementioned case claimed 9 units for the deities of the aforementioned temples as allegedly in law all the deities became entitled to separate unit. By an order, dated 25-12-1979, however 6 units were allotted to the deities of all three temples: one unit for the trust, and one unit for the Mahanth in respect of his personal property. The said order is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 8. The petitioner has contended that one Ram Chandra Singh laid a claim over 2.14 acres of Class II lands, which had been allowed. Similarly the claim of one Sanjha Devi had also been allowed. 9. The petitioner contends that although the aforementioned Ram chandra Singh only made a claim of 2.14 acres of Class II land but he filed an application for initiation of a proceeding under Sec.45-B of the said act on 19-2-1985 and the said claim was rejected by an order dated 6-8-1985. 10. The aforementioned Ram Chandra Singh filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No.4322 of 1985 but the said writ petition was disposed of on 24-9-1985 with an observation that the order passed by the ceiling Authority will not be bar to bring a suit or other proceeding for declaration title and recovery of possession. 11. It is stated that despite the said order an application was filed by ram Chandra Singh through his daughter, Dr. Punam Kumari where false allegations were made to the effect that the petitioner holds 250 acres of land and fraudulently obtained 8 units and upon the said application the revenue Minister directed the Collector, Sitamarhi to take action under the said Act. 12. Punam Kumari where false allegations were made to the effect that the petitioner holds 250 acres of land and fraudulently obtained 8 units and upon the said application the revenue Minister directed the Collector, Sitamarhi to take action under the said Act. 12. According to the petitioner the Collector at the first instance refused to reopen a proceeding and expressed his opinion in the matter in his letter to the Land Ceiling Commissioner, Bihar, Patna bearing letter No.276 dated 22-7-1992. However, on receipt of the said letter the relevant records were called for by the Commissioner Land Reforms but despite the same the respondent No.2 under the influence of some persons instead of sending the records of the case issued the impugned notice which is contained in annexure-9 to the writ application. 13. The petitioner has inter alia contended that the said notice is mala fide and the same could not have been issued at the instance of Dr. Punam Kumari, daughter of aforementioned Ram Chandra Singh. 14. In this case an intervention application has been filed on behalf of Ram Chandra Singh. In the said intervention application it has been pointed out that although lands appertaining to Khata Nos.91, 92 and 93 have been recorded in the name of Jagdish Narain Singh and the land appertaining to Khata Nos.415 and 416 have been recorded in the name of babu Ram Baksish Singh in the land ceiling case of the petitioner No.4, namely Ram Sundar Das a revised verification report was purported to have been sent by the Karamchari as in Annexure ka wherein it had been shown that the lands of Khata Nos 91, 92 and 93 were recorded in the name of sri Ram Janki Jee, Lakshman Jee and Hanuman Jee, thorough Sevait mahanth Ram Swaroop Das. It had been stated that in column No.4 of the said schedule a heading was given, in the name of land holder of Khata (as per new Khatiyan) although according to the intervenor no new Khatiyan had been prepared. It has been contended that forgery had been committed in the relevant khatiyan maintained at the Anchal level which is contrary to and inconsistent with the Khatiyan maintained at the Collectorate level. 15. It has been contended that forgery had been committed in the relevant khatiyan maintained at the Anchal level which is contrary to and inconsistent with the Khatiyan maintained at the Collectorate level. 15. It has been contended that the Intervenor was not aware of commission of the said forgery and thus could not make any claim in respect of the land appertaining to Khata Nos.91, 92 and 93. 16. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that from a perusal of the statements made in Paragraph 11 of the writ application it would appear that earlier the petitioner had claimed only 5 units but later on he claimed 9 units. 17. However, according to Mr. Keshav Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner earlier only 5 units have been claimed by mistake as in fact the deities were entitled to separate units. The learned counsel in this connection relied upon Ram Janki Jee deities and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 417 . 18. Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that each deity was not entitled to a separate unit. He in support of his contention relied upon Shri Lakshim narain and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1978 BBCJ 489 . 19. In Ram Janki Ji and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 417 , U. P. Singh, J. has held that such idols which reflected the images of such forms as ordained by the Shastras become the idols of hindu-deities. Only such persons are juristic persons and thus entitle to hold the property under the Hindu Law. In Shri Lakshmi Narain and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1978 BBCJ 489 , a division bench of this court held :- - "at the very outset, I would make it clear that in this case no trust was created by Daspat Rai in favour of the idols. Had it been a case of a trust the position would have been quite otherwise. The the consecration is of the idols and the dedication of the property is to them directly. After the dedication, it would have been possible for Daspat Rai to create the trust and vest the lands under the trustees, but he did not do that. Had it been a case of a trust the position would have been quite otherwise. The the consecration is of the idols and the dedication of the property is to them directly. After the dedication, it would have been possible for Daspat Rai to create the trust and vest the lands under the trustees, but he did not do that. It was settled that the basic concept of a religious endowment under the Hindu law differs in essential particulars from the concept of trust known to English law. Daspat Rai himself constituted as the first shebait and laid down the rule of succession in the document in question. The legal ownership under the endowment, therefore, vested in the idole. The dedication in this case being directly to the idols, the position of Daspat Rai, the shebait, was only of the administrator of the properties in question. In the case of sri Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal V/s. Baluswami Ayyar and others, the judicial committee quoted with approval the following passage from Hindu law by J. C. Ghose : "under the Hindu law, the image of a deity of the Hindy panth one is. as has been aptly called a juristic entity, vested with the capacity of receiving gift and holding property. . . . . . . . . . . . when the gift is directly an idol or a temple, the seisin to complete the gift is necessarily effected by human agency, called by whatever name, he is only the manager and custodian of the idol or the institution. " The nature of the property there, is debuttar, that is, belonging to the deities. It would be proper at this stage to notice the distinction between the properties dedicated to temples and that to Maths. When the dedication is to a temple the property is held by the idols, but the possession and its management must, in the nature of things, be entrusted to some person as shebait or manager who is a human ministrant of the deity to conduct worship. When the dedication is to a temple the property is held by the idols, but the possession and its management must, in the nature of things, be entrusted to some person as shebait or manager who is a human ministrant of the deity to conduct worship. A math like an idol in Hindu law is a juridical person capable of acquiring holding and vindicating legal rights, but the position of the Mahanth, however, is that the property of a Math is held by him as the spiritual head of the institution in the conception of Mahantship, as in shebaitship, both the elements of office and property are blended together, and neither can be detached from the other, but a Mahanth, in addition to his duties, has a personal interest of a beneficial character which is much larger than that of a shebait in a debuttar property. " 20. From a perusal of the aforementioned decisions it appears that if an endowment is made to a deity, it being a juristic person is entitled to an unit but the position would be otherwise in case of a trust. 21. Thus in my opinion, each case has to be decided on its own, keeping in view the fact as to whether endowment was made in favour of a deity, or a trust on the basis of the terras of endowment itself. If an endowment is made in favour of the duities separately, each deity may become entitled to a separate unit but when such endowment is made to a temple or trust, even if several deities are installed therein, only the trust or the temple, as the case may be would be entitled to an unit. Ths petitioners have not produced before us anything oa records to substantiate their claim that each deity was entitled to separate unit and further even the trust was entitled to one unit. 22. However, in view of the points involved in this case, it is not necessary to consider the matter any further. In our opinion, prima facie it must be held that new materials have been placed on records before the Collector of the District for his satisfaction that a case has been made out for reopening of the earlier proceeding. 22. However, in view of the points involved in this case, it is not necessary to consider the matter any further. In our opinion, prima facie it must be held that new materials have been placed on records before the Collector of the District for his satisfaction that a case has been made out for reopening of the earlier proceeding. The collector of the District however, before passing a final order, must apply his independent mind to the materials which may be brought on record and pass an order in accordance with law. As the petitioners shall have to be heard by the Collector of the district, no prejudice whatsoever, shall be earned to them in this regard. 23. There cannot be any doubt that Collector of the district would give an opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioners but also to the aforementioned Ram Chandra Singh and/or his daughter Dr. Punam kumari. 24. We are passing this order in view of the fact that as indicated hereinbefore many disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the matter and only upon determination of such question and fact and law, the collector of the district would be able to decide about the jurisdictional fact so as to enable him to direct as to whether the proceeding in question should be reopened in exercise of his power under Sec.45-B of the said Act or not. In Jitendra Kumar Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar and others, in cwjc No.10046 of 1992 disposed of on 16-12-1992, this bench has held that, such jurisdictional facts should be allowed to be determined at the first instance by the tribunal itself. 25. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this application which accordingly is dismissed but subject to the observations made hereinbefore. 26. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order at to costs. Application Dismissed.