Judgment 1. The dispute in the present writ application relates to substitution of petitioner/ respondent no. 7 in the ceiling proceeding. Mahanth Shambhu Giri @ Mahanth Kripa Snankar Giri (petitioner), and Binod Thakur @ Binod Giri (respondent no. 7), both are claiming to be Mahanth of Marukia Math and in that capacity they are claiming their substitution as land-holders in Land Ceiling case no. 15 of 1973-74/12 of 1995-96. Prayer of the petitioner Mahanth Shambhu Giri @ Mahanth Kripa Shankar Giri is for quashing the order dated 20.3.2004 passed by the Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case no. 67 of 2003 (Annexure-1) whereby prayer of respondent no. 7 for substitution has been allowed. 2. Marukia Math was established on donation of lands from Darbhanga Maharaj to Aya Guru Swami Shankracharya. The Principal/parent math is located at Bodh Gaya called Sanyasi Math and the line of descendent is on the basis of Chelaship. Mohanth Somar Giri became the Mahanth of Marukia Math after the death of Mahanth Radhey Giri. He continued up to 1910 and his name was recorded in khatiyan with respect to properties of the Math. Shankar Giri and Rajeshwar Giri were his chelas. After the death of Somar Giri, initially Shankar Giri became the Mahanth of the math and after the death of Shankar Giri, Rajeshwar Giri became the Mahanth with this condition that the Mahanthship will devolve on Sundar Giri chela of Shankar giri, Dispute arose from this point as Rajeshwar Giri ignored Sunder Giri and appointed his own chela Ishwar Giri as Mahanth. Ishwar Giri continued to be the Mahanth of the Math from 1953 to 1994. During his regime he started claiming the Math properties to be his persqnal and private properties. A litigation ensued and Mahanth Ishwar Giri filed Title Suit no. 33 of 1961 in the court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, for declaration that the Math properties were his private properties and it was not of Hindu Religious Trust. Bihar Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") was also impleaded as defendant in the suit. The authority of the "Board" came in collusion with Mahanth Ishwar Giri. They half-heartedly contested the suit and the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1963 whereby the properties of the Marukia Math were held to be private trust property, the Board having go concern with it. The authority of the "Board" came in collusion with Mahanth Ishwar Giri. They half-heartedly contested the suit and the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1963 whereby the properties of the Marukia Math were held to be private trust property, the Board having go concern with it. As an eyewash First Appeal no. 84 of 1964 was filed by the Board before the Patna High Court which was also contested halfheartedly and the First Appeal was dismissed on 20.10.1971. Subsequently, land ceiling proceeding numbered as L/C. case no. 15 of 1973-74 was initiated against Ishwar Giri, Mahanth of Marukia Math. The ceiling authorities honouring the judgment of the Patna High Court in First Appeal no. 84 of 1964 treated the Math property as private property of Mahanth Ishwar Giri. One unit equivalent to 30 acres of Class-IV lands were allotted to him and 153.69 acres of land were declared surplus. A draft publication under section 10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling, Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was made. Mahanth Ishwar Giri filed objection under section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act claiming at least two units one for himself and other for the deity. At this stage he changed his stand, claimed for exemption under section 29 of the Act stating that the nature of the Trust was the Public Religious Trust of which he was Shebait. Since lands belonged to Public Religious Trust as such it should be exempted under section 29 of the Act. Since the stand taken by Mahanth Ishwar Giri was in total contradiction of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit as well as First Appeal no. 84 of 1964, as such, the pleas taken by him were rejected up to the stage of Addl. Member Board of Revenue and only one unit was made admissible to him. Ishwar Giri moved the High Court vide C.W.J.C. no. 296 of 1978. He totally suppressed the existence of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 33 of 1967 as well First Appeal no. 84 of 1964. He came out with a new case that Math was an old Religious Public Trust, as such, two units should have been made admissible to it. 296 of 1978. He totally suppressed the existence of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 33 of 1967 as well First Appeal no. 84 of 1964. He came out with a new case that Math was an old Religious Public Trust, as such, two units should have been made admissible to it. He renewed his prayer for exemption under section 29 of the Act on the ground that a school is being run by the Math property, for managing the School Math is entitled for exemption under section 29 of the Act. Considering the new case of Mahanth Ishwar Giri, the Hon ble High Court by order dated 22.2.1980 allowed the claim of the Malt) for two units taking it to be a Public Trust. While ceiling proceeding has started de novo after its abatement under sections 34/34A of the Ceiling Act, Mahanth Ishwar Giri died on 3.10.1994. He died without appointing any Chela or heir. Last rites of Mahanth Ishwar Giri were performed in accordance with the customs of the Math, which was attended by Sanyasi of Parent Math at Bodh Gaya. A public meeting was held which was attended by the villagers as well as Sanyasis of the parent Math. In that meeting petitioner, namely, Shambhu Giri @ Mahanth Kripa Shankar Giri was appointed as Mahanth of the said Math. Since then he has been managing the properties of the Math. He filed an application on 27.6.1995 for substitution of his name in the ceiling proceeding in place of Mahanth Ishwar Giri. A report was called by the Addl. Collector from the S.D.O., Jhanjharpur. Circle Officer, Andhrathari and S.D.O., Jhanjharpur both conducted enquiry on their own level and submitted their reports regarding the appointment of the petitioner as a new Mahanth of the Marukia Math in a public meeting. While the matter of petitioners substitution was pending, in the meantime, Binod Thakur @ Binod Giri (respondent no.7) field an application claiming himself to be the legal representatives of late Ishwar Giri on the strength of a "will" purported to have been executed by Ishwar Giri (deceased Mahanth). Respondent no. 7 filed an application on 17.10.1995 but he remained absent after filing this application. The matter was heard on 19.12,1995 and on that date also respondent no. Respondent no. 7 filed an application on 17.10.1995 but he remained absent after filing this application. The matter was heard on 19.12,1995 and on that date also respondent no. 7 absented himself and finally on consideration of the report of the Circle Officer the substitution petition of the petitioner was allowed. Respondent no.7 again on 2.1.1996 filed a petition for including his name in the ceiling proceeding. The petitioner filed his rejoinder to this petition. This matter was heard and by order dated 11.9.1996/ 18.10.1996 the Addl. Collector, Madhubani, decided the matter. The Add). Collector, Madhubani, on consideration of the report of the Circle Officer as well as the pendency of the Probate Case filed by respondent no. 7, recommended that the Collector should appoint a receiver for the management of property until the dispute regarding the heirship of Mahanth Ishwar Giri is decided by the competent court. On the basis of this recommendation, the Circle Officer was appointed as receiver. Petitioners case is that receiver was appointed simply on. paper, but he never took charge and the Math property exclusively remained under the possession and management of the petitioner. Finally, the order of appointment of receiver was recalled vide order dated 7.1.1998 by the Addl. Collector and the ceiling proceeding proceeded against the petitioner as a land-holder, A draft publication was made under section 10(2) of the Act in favour of the petitioner by which two units were allowed to him in the capacity of the Mahanth of the Math and rest 100.39 1/2 acres were declared surplus. Petitioner filed an objection on 20.8.1998 under section 10(2) of the Act, a verification report was called for by the Addl. Collector and ultimately vide order, dated 31.5.1999 the objection under section 10(3) of the Act was disposed of and an order was made to make a final publication under section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner under section 30 of the Act and the order became final. At this stage the respondent no. 7 filed C.W.J.C. no. 10384 of 1999 challenging the order dated 19.12.1995 by which his petition for substitution was decided against him. This order was challenged after much delay, as such, the Hon ble High Court refused to entertain it. However, liberty was granted to respondent no. 7 to file an appeal against the order dated 19.12.1995. 7 filed C.W.J.C. no. 10384 of 1999 challenging the order dated 19.12.1995 by which his petition for substitution was decided against him. This order was challenged after much delay, as such, the Hon ble High Court refused to entertain it. However, liberty was granted to respondent no. 7 to file an appeal against the order dated 19.12.1995. The respondent filed an application before the Collector challenging the order dated 19.12.1995 which was dismissed on the ground that since against the order dated 31.5.1999 respondent no. 7 did not prefer any appeal under section 30 of the Act, his present application numbers as Misc. case no. 4 of 1999-2000 was not maintainable. It was dismissed by order dated 20.7.2002. The respondent no. 7 again moved before the High Court in C.W.J.C. no. 2243 of 2003 as he could not have preferred any revision considering the finding of the Collector that he had not filed any appeal against the order by which the Anal publication was directed to be made. The writ application was going to be dismissed when respondent no. 7 sought permission to withdraw the writ application with a liberty to file a revision before the Board of Revenue. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.9.2003. The respondent no. 7 thereafter filed Ceiling Revision Case no. 67 of 2003 before the Member Board of Revenue and by order dated 20.3.2004 the revision has been disposed of by the Member Board of Revenue with a direction that Binod Giri respondent no, (7) should be substituted in place of Ishwar Giri under section 45(C) of the Act. The substitution so made will be subject to the final judgment/order passed by the High Court in the pending First Appeal. The two units of class-IV lands measuring 60 acres which have been allotted as unit will be managed by the substituted Mahanth and he will have no concern with the rest of the lands which have been declared surplus under section 15(1) of the Act. This very order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application. 3. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and after nine years respondent no. 7 had challenged the order dated 19.12.1995, which could not have been entertained and allowed by the revisional authority. This very order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application. 3. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and after nine years respondent no. 7 had challenged the order dated 19.12.1995, which could not have been entertained and allowed by the revisional authority. The judgment in probate case no 105 of 1994 has erroneously been treated as final when admittedly F.A. no. 200 of 2002 is pending for disposal. The revisional authority failed to appreciate that the scope of the Probate Case is extremely limited to the extent of determination of the fact as to whether legally and validly the will have been executed by the executant. A probate proceeding does not decide the right, title and interest of the person in the property of the executant. Since the draft publication as well as final publication was made in his name, now the name of respondent no. 7 should not have been directed to be substituted as a landholder in the ceiling proceeding in the last stage. In the garb of passing order under section 45(C) of the Act the Member Board of Revenue has passed a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession in favour of respondent no. 7 which is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 7, wherein he has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ application as he is a stranger. Further it has been stated that the writ application is hit by the principles of res judicata. The Division Bench of this Hon ble Court, vide judgment dated 20.10.1971 passed in FA no. 84 of 1964, has declared the properties of the Math as personal property of Mahanth Ishwar Giri. Late Mahanth ishwar Giri holder of the Math and its properties, during his lifetime had duly adopted respondent no. 7 as his chela and karta putra, in order to avoid any litigation after his death. Mahanth Ishwar Giri in presence of his full brother and relatives had executed a deed of will dated 19.8.1994 appointing respondent no. 7 as Mahanth of the Math. This "will" has been duly probated by the 1st Addl. 7 as his chela and karta putra, in order to avoid any litigation after his death. Mahanth Ishwar Giri in presence of his full brother and relatives had executed a deed of will dated 19.8.1994 appointing respondent no. 7 as Mahanth of the Math. This "will" has been duly probated by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Madhubani, vide judgment dated 7.8.2002 passed in Probate Case No. 105 of 1994/T.S. no. 23 of 1996. The letters of administration has also been duly issued by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani, on 24.12.2002. The judgment of the Probate Case has been challenged in F.A. no. 200 of 2002 by the petitioner. In this F.A., the claim of the petitioner with regard to his entitlement in the Math and its properties has also been rejected by the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 22.5.2003 with the observation that appellant (petitioner) may file a title suit before the competent court with regard to his claim for right, title and interest in the private Math and its properties. The petitioner had earlier filed C.W.J.C. no. 4361 of 2002 claiming his right, title and interest over the Math and its properties which was dismissed by order dated 23.8.2002. In this background, any subsequent writ application filed by the petitioner claiming his entitlement directly or indirectly, is fit to be dismissed being hit by the principles of res judicata. The petitioner had preferred another writ application being C.W.J.C. no. 12390 of 2002 which was dismissed by order dated 4.2.2003. Against this order L.P.A. no. 176 of 2003 was filed which has also been dismissed by order dated 7.3.2003. Against the order dated 24.12.2002 granting letters of administration in favour of respondent no. 7, petitioner preferred Civil Revision no. 17 of 2003 which has also been dismissed by this Hon ble Court by order dated 9.1.2003. The claim of the petitioner with regard to his entitiement in the Math property has been dismissed at each and every stage and now he cannot be allowed to maintain this writ application because the same involves so many disputed and unfounded facts. So far the order dated 19.12,1995 is concerned, it was made by the Addl. Collector admitting the petitioner as party to the land ceiling proceeding. So far the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the Collector in Appeal no. 4 of 1999- 2000 with Misc. Case no. So far the order dated 19.12,1995 is concerned, it was made by the Addl. Collector admitting the petitioner as party to the land ceiling proceeding. So far the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the Collector in Appeal no. 4 of 1999- 2000 with Misc. Case no. 7 of 1999-2000 is concerned, it was rightly been set aside by the Member Board of Revenue in Revision case no. 67 of 2003. The Addl. Collector had passed the order totally ignoring the order passed in the Probate Case no, 105 of 1994-95/Title Suit no. 23 of 1996. This probate case was contested by the petitioner and in his presence the letters of administration was issued in favour of respondent no. 7. 5. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Revenue Authority in the Ceiling proceeding, ignoring the order passed by the competent civil court and deciding the issue relating to substitution under Section 45(C) of the Act in total disregard of the order Passed by the Civil Court was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and it has rightly been set aside by the Member Board of Revenue. The substitution petition filed by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 under section 45(C) of the Act should have been heard and decided in accordance with law, in view of the probate judgment dated 7.8.2002 and letters of administration dated 24.12.2002. The Revenue Court should have taken into consideration the contents of the "will" of the ex-landholder but the Addl. Collector vide his order dated 19.12.1995 and the Collector by his order dated 20.7.2002 failed to do so. The Member Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the order dated 20.7.2002 and has allowed respondent no. 7 to be substituted as landholder in place of ex-landholder Mahanth Ishwar Giri because only respondent no. 7 is entitled to be substituted as landholder in Ceiling Case no. 12 of 1995-96/15 of 1973-74 initiated against the ex-landholder fete Mahanth Ishwar Giri. 6. The statement made in the writ petition and in the counter-affidavit as well as submission advanced by the parties, it is clear that two separate disputes are involved in the present case. 7 is entitled to be substituted as landholder in Ceiling Case no. 12 of 1995-96/15 of 1973-74 initiated against the ex-landholder fete Mahanth Ishwar Giri. 6. The statement made in the writ petition and in the counter-affidavit as well as submission advanced by the parties, it is clear that two separate disputes are involved in the present case. On the one hand, it relates to the substitution of the legal heirs of the ex-landholder Mahanth Ishwar Giri and another matter relates to the genuineness of the "will" executed by the ex-fendhoider which has also been probated and the letters of administration of which has been issued by a competent civil court in favour of the beneficiary. In this connection, reference can be made of section 45(C) of the Land Celling Act read with rule 55(4) of the said Act regarding substitution of the landholder in case of death of the ex-landholder. These provisions clearly indicate that substitution is to be made "Either by the Collector or by the appropriate authority, as the case may be". Here in the present case the matter of substitution is based on the "will" of the ex-landholder, the competent authority in the present case is Sub-Judge or the District Judge who is the appropriate authority under the Indian Succession Act for probate of the "will". The reference of the appropriate authority as envisaged under section 45(C) of the Act read with Rule 55(4) of Land Ceiling Act is the District Judge. Once adjudication has been made by the appropriate authority, i.e. the learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 7.8.2002, in that case the Revenue Court is bound to follow the judgment passed in Probate case/Testamentary Suit. Accordingly, respondent no. 7 is entitled to be substituted as a landholder in celling case in place of ex-landholder Mahanth Ishwar Giri. Under Sections 216 and 220 read with section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, "will" even if probated later on, its effect will be from the date of the death of the propounder/executor of the "will". From the date of the death of the executor itself, the holder of the "will" will be deemed to have succeeded the interest of the executor in terms of the contents of the "will". The petitioner has also raised the point regarding the pendency of the First Appeal no. From the date of the death of the executor itself, the holder of the "will" will be deemed to have succeeded the interest of the executor in terms of the contents of the "will". The petitioner has also raised the point regarding the pendency of the First Appeal no. 200 of 2002 and has stated that the issuance of the letters of administration in favour of Respondent no. 7 is not final. In this regard it can be said that the petitioner had filed a petition for stay of the operation of the judgment dated 7.8.2002 which has been rejected by arder dated 22.5.2003 passed in First Appeal no. 200 of 2002. Since the judgment and decree passed in the probate case has not been stayed by the appellate court, it will be operative in its letters and spirits. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioner has got no case and claim to be agitated or litigated. The petition is devoid of any merit and is fit to be dismissed.