JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. An order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang on 6.6.1986 granting perpetual annuity for the years 1972 to 1976 under the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Assam State. Acquisition of Lands belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions and Public Nature Act. 1959, shortly, "the Act". The aforesaid annuity, for the period in question, was granted to the present respondent No. 1 as the legal heir of one Narayan Chandra Sarmah Borthakur, who was found to be the head of the institution known as Shri Mahabhairab Devalaya at the Tezpur Town during the period 1972 to 1976. The appeal filed before the learned District Judge, Darrang at Tezpur, under Section 21 of the Act by the management committee of the temple against the order dated 6.6.1986 was dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 13.10.1999 holding that during the period 1972 to 1976, Narayan Borthakur had been the Head Priest of the temple and was also the Head of the institution under Section 2(d) of the Act ; and that the management committee having come into effect from 2.5.1976, the grant of annuity in favour of the present respondent No. 1 was rightly made. Aggrieved the present writ application has been filed against the aforesaid mentioned order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned District Judge. 2. The challenge made by the writ petitioner in the pleadings as well as the oral arguments advanced by Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, reduced to its essentials, is that Narayan Borthakur was not the Head of the temple during the period 1972 to 1976. There was a committee constituted to run the affairs of the temple during the aforesaid period and therefore, the annuity should have been granted to the said committee. The claims of Narayan Borthakur to be the Head of the Institution and on that basis to have run its affairs, has been expressly negated by a Division Bench of the Court in a Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1982 passed in Civil Rule No. 268/1980. The claims of Narayan Borthakur to be the Head of the Institution and on that basis to have run its affairs, has been expressly negated by a Division Bench of the Court in a Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1982 passed in Civil Rule No. 268/1980. Placing a copy of the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued, that it has been categorically held by this Court, in the above mentioned judgment, that Narayan Borthakur, who was the petitioner in CR 268/80, had no exclusive right to manage the affairs of the temple and that the temple is a Public temple and therefore there can be no recognition of any individual's exclusive right to manage the temple. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.9.1982, has contended that the claims of Narayan Borthakur on the basis of which annuity has been granted to the respondent No. 1 herein, having been expressly negated by this Court in CR 268/80, the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner as well as learned District Judge are legally infirm and call for appropriate interference by this Court. 3. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner Ms. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, by placing reliance on the order of the District Judge has submitted that the learned District Judge had categorically found that during the period for which annuity was granted, i.e., 1972 to 1976, there was no committee in existence and it is Narayan Borthakur who had managed the affairs of the temple during the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the respondent, further, argues that the aforesaid questions are essentially question of fact and the learned Court below having determined, on the basis of the materials on record, that Narayan Borthakur was head priest of the temple and in that capacity had acted as the head of the institution, any interference with the orders passed by the learned District Judge would not be called for in the facts of the present case. 4. The submissions advanced by the respective counsel for the parties have been duly noted. The writ petitioner has not been able to bring any document on record to establish that during the period 1972 to 1976, there was a committee constituted to run the affairs of the temple in question. 4. The submissions advanced by the respective counsel for the parties have been duly noted. The writ petitioner has not been able to bring any document on record to establish that during the period 1972 to 1976, there was a committee constituted to run the affairs of the temple in question. Learned counsel also has not been able to satisfy the Court, on the basis of the materials available, that during the aforesaid period, i.e., 1972 to 1976, Narayan Borthakur did not manage the affairs of the temple as the Head Priest. Reliance on the judgment of this Court passed on 21.9.1982 in CR 268/80, as noted above, also appears to be also somewhat misplaced. The aforesaid writ proceeding was initiated by Narayan Borthakur challenging the constitution of a managing committee of the temple made in the year 1978. The observations of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, to the effect that Narayan Borthakur would have no exclusive right to manage the affairs of the temple, must be viewed in the context of the challenge made in the said writ proceeding. The claims made by Narayan Borthakur to an exclusive right to manage the affairs of the temple, as a ground of challenge against the constitution of the managing committee, were viewed by this Court with disfavour in as much as the temple was found to be a public property, and therefore no such exclusive right in any individual, could be claimed, a position later fortified by the amendment to the Act made in the year 1987 by incorporating Section 25(A). However, a perusal of the judgment and order dated 21.9.1982 does not indicate that this Court had any occasion, to deal with the question, whether during the period 1972 to 1976, Narayan Borthakur was or was not the head priest or head of the institution. 5. As the petitioner has not been able to place any material whatsoever, showing constitution of any committee to run the affairs of the temple during the period 1972 to 1976 and in fact the materials on record having demonstrated that such a committee was constituted with effect from 2.5.1976, this Court must hold, as has been done by the learned District Judge, that during the period 1972 to 1976, Narayan Borthakur had managed the affairs of the temple in question. If that be so, the annuity under Section 8 of the act must go to his legal heirs. As the same has been done by the Authority and such action has been upheld by the learned District Judge, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would like to maintain the same by upholding the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge on 13.10.1999. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court makes if clear that the entitlement of respondent No. 1 to annuity under the Act must be understood to be confined upto 2.5.1976 only and such entitlement would also be subject to the claims of such other persons who may legitimately establish any claim of having served the temple as a Borthakur during the period in question. 7. This writ petition shall accordingly stand dismissed subject to the observations made above. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs. Writ petition dismissed