JUDGMENT 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6812 of 2012 dated 8th March, 2013. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure 5 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal) was under challenge in the writ petition. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is Sewa Samitee, who was given management and control of the temple, in question by 'Sri Sri Jagatguru Shankeracharya Swami Sri Swarupanandjee Saraswatijee Maharaj'. The temple, in question is not a government property, at all. Since 1890, the ownership of Mahadeoshal Temple, Goelkera is belonging to the private persons. The appellant is a registered society. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the history of ownership of the temple, in question since 1890 and has submitted that since long the appellant is managing the affairs of Mahadeoshal temple and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority to give the management to other persons than the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2012 dated 8th March, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that Mahadeoshal temple is situated at plot no. 1216, area 6 decimals under khata no. 2 of mouza Baidala, thana no. 526, revenue thana Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum. Yatrished, kitchen, community bhawan, dharmshala, shed, temporary ticket ghar are situated on the land bearing no. 217, area 55 decimals. The said plots are government lands. The names of other persons are mentioned as “Sewayat of the Temple”, and have right to offer prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed out detailed history of the temple, in question from 1890 and it has also been pointed out that there are several criminal proceedings for certain incidents, which were taken place in the temple under various sections of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed out detailed history of the temple, in question from 1890 and it has also been pointed out that there are several criminal proceedings for certain incidents, which were taken place in the temple under various sections of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also offence in the year 2008 that Brahmchari Pujari appointed by the Akhil Bhartiya Adhyatmik Uthan Mandal, was involved in a rape case and he was taken in custody, as stated on oath in an affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in Shrawani Mela, there are lot of mismanagement due to heavy rush of the public at large and there is also mismanagement so far monetary aspect is concerned and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has rightly passed an order dated 2nd November, 2011 as an interim measure. There is inter se dispute between the appellant (original petitioner) and respondent no. 4. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present appellant (original petitioner) seeks quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa dated 2nd November, 2012 whereby, a direction is given by the Deputy Commissioner that under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, Rules, there is a Board constituted and this type of religious trust must get registered so that this type of trust can be properly managed, religious activities can also be carried out accurately and the financial aspect can also be taken care of in light of the aforesaid fact. (ii) It appears that there is rival claim made by the respondent no. (ii) It appears that there is rival claim made by the respondent no. 4, who is Pujari of the temple, in question and it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition the history from the year 1890 that one Janki Prasad Mishra is claiming ownership, thereafter his successor Kedar Mishra, thereafter Shivmangal Mishra, thereafter Shyam Bihari Mishra thereafter one Balak Baba and thereafter, Jagat Guru Sankracharya Ji Maharaj and thereafter, some Committee was constituted by the last person, “Mahadeoshal Parmarth Ashram Committee”. Thus, the detailed history from 1890 six persons are shown in succession of each other, as owners and concerned with the management of the affairs of the temple, in question, is pointed out by the respondent no.4, who is Pujari. Thus, it appears that there are claims and counter claims to be settled by cogent, convincing and accurate evidence before the Board constituted under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, Rules made thereunder. (iii) It further appears that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which is under challenge by temporary management has taken place so far as the management of affairs of the temple is concerned, and we see no reason to upset the said temporary management taken by the State Government because day in and day out money is donated by the devotees to the temple. It ought to be managed properly by keeping proper account and therefore, rightly the direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to get the registration first and thereafter, the same will be managed properly by the directions of the Board under the Act and the Rules made therein. (iv) Moreover, it is also brought on record that the present appellant (original petitioner) has preferred an application for getting registration number and the same is also given and there is also a counter claim preferred by the pujari for cancellation of the registration. Thus, there is no crystallized right vested in the petitioner and it is in the belligerent stage. The right of the petitioner as well as right of the Pujari are yet to be finalised and that can be done only by the Board by cogent, convincing and accurate evidence and this is what observed in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The right of the petitioner as well as right of the Pujari are yet to be finalised and that can be done only by the Board by cogent, convincing and accurate evidence and this is what observed in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order dated 8th March, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2012. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.