Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1669 (GAU)

Rukminigaon v. State of Assam

2018-11-29

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2018
ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. PS Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. Petitioner is the Rukminigaon/Rukmini Nagar Sri Sri Lakshmi Mandir Samitee represented by its President, Sri Pulin Chandra Goswami. It is stated that petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and correctness of the letter dated 31.03.2010, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) allotting sarkari (government) land measuring 15 lechas covered by Dag No. 156 (Part Kha) of Village-Rukminigaon under Beltola Mouza in favour of both petitioner and respondent No. 5 i.e., Rukminigaon/Rukmini Nagar Namghar Committee subject to utilisation for the specific purpose, failing which the allotment would automatically stand cancelled and reverted back to the Government. 4. This Court by order dated 26.04.2010 had admitted the writ petition and had stayed the operation of the impugned letter dated 31.03.2010 in so far respondent No. 5 is concerned. 5. Thereafter from the various orders passed by this Court, it is seen that Court had taken the view that both the disputing parties i.e., petitioner and respondent No. 5 should mutually settle their differences. 6. Such orders passed by this Court, from time to time, would be adverted to at a subsequent stage of this order. 7. At this stage, what is to be noted is that Government had allotted 15 lechas of Government land to both petitioner and respondent No. 5 to be shared mutually for religious purpose. Petitioner is a society managing a temple called, Sri Sri Lakshmi Mandir. On the other hand respondent No. 5 is a committee representing a Namghar. Though on the face of it, the dispute does not appear to be very complex and complicated, to understand the intricacies of the dispute, it would be useful to briefly outline the subtle, yet significant differences between the two forms of worship though both belong to the Hindu fold. 8. Though on the face of it, the dispute does not appear to be very complex and complicated, to understand the intricacies of the dispute, it would be useful to briefly outline the subtle, yet significant differences between the two forms of worship though both belong to the Hindu fold. 8. Observation of the Court on the above aspect, however, is with the disclaimer that it is not a scholarly or academic exposition of the distinction between the two folds. The same is highlighted in a rudimentary manner only for the purpose of understanding the subtlety of the dispute. 9. Broadly speaking Hinduism in the State of Assam as has evolved over the years has two parallel streams though there are sub-streams in both. One stream can be loosely termed as belonging to the Sakti form of worship and the other stream can be termed as Bhakti form of worship. The temple dedicated to mother Goddess Kamakhya is the prime example of Sakti form of worship in the State of Assam. The Bhakti movement started in the State in the mid fourteenth century as part of the pan India Bhakti movement The Bhakti movement or the Neo-Vaishnavite movement in the State of Assam was pioneered by Srimanta Sankardev who is revered and referred to as Mahapurush Srimanta Sankardev. To preach and propagate Vaishnavism, which is obeisance to Lord Vishnu and his different incarnations, Namghars and Sattras were established in different parts of the country. At this stage, we may note the elementary distinction between Sakti form of worship and Bhakti form of worship. In the Sakti form, worship of God is through idol i.e., there is idol worship and this is done through a priest or a group of priests. On the other than, Namghar is a place for congruence of the community where there is community worship through reciting of prayers and hymns. Needless to say, in the Bhakti movement idolatry is not given much prominence. Since there is community of worship, requirement of a priest or priestly class has also been done away with. On the other than, Namghar is a place for congruence of the community where there is community worship through reciting of prayers and hymns. Needless to say, in the Bhakti movement idolatry is not given much prominence. Since there is community of worship, requirement of a priest or priestly class has also been done away with. Further deliberation on this aspect in so far the present case is concerned may not be necessary but suffice it to say, over the years, Namghar has emerged as a focal point of the local community where men and women folk congregate not only for religious purposes but for taking decisions affecting the life of the community. As a matter of fact, Namghar has also emerged as a centre for dispute resolution, so much so that it can be usefully utilised at the village and community level for settlement of disputes in the true spirit of conciliation. Therefore, Namghars play a very important and significant role in the life of the community. 10. Having noted the above and adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that in 2008 also, to be precise, on 20.10.08 similar allotment was made to both the parties and this has been reiterated in the impugned letter dated 31.03.2010. 11. Respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit opposing the writ petition. Though several legal points have been taken, it may not necessary to advert to the same having regard to the nature of the dispute and the order which is proposed to be passed. However, it may be mentioned that petitioner has filed reply-affidavit to the affidavit of respondent No. 5. 12. It is seen that during the course of hearing on 25.08.2017, it was mentioned that both the parties are performing their respective ceremonies by mutually adjusting each other. Court observed that same spirit may be followed by both the parties on all occasions and the two parties may mutually adjust each other. The two parties were requested to sit together and come to a mutually acceptable position. Relevant portion of the order dated 25.08.2017 is extracted hereunder:- "In this writ petition, the petitioner raises a dispute against the order dated 31.03.2010 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. The two parties were requested to sit together and come to a mutually acceptable position. Relevant portion of the order dated 25.08.2017 is extracted hereunder:- "In this writ petition, the petitioner raises a dispute against the order dated 31.03.2010 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management by which 15 lechas of land of Dag No. 156 Part-Kha Village Rukmini Gaon was allotted in favour of both the Rukmini Nagar Namghar Committee and Rukmini Nagar Sri Sri Lakshimi Mandir Samittee. It is stated that on all other days the parties are performing their respective auspicious ceremonies by mutually adjusting with each other and there is no dispute between them. It is expected that same spirit would be followed by both the parties on all occasions and they will mutually adjust with each other through amicable discussion regarding timings of the ceremony to be performed on any given day, where there may be a clash of the events to be performed. Accordingly, list this matter after four weeks. In the meantime, the Rukmini Nagar Namghar Committee and Rukmini Nagar Sri Sri Lakshimi Mandir Samittee shall sit together and come to a mutually acceptable position of both the parties." 13. On subsequent dates of hearing, Court recorded that efforts were on by the parties to explore possibilities of an amicable settlement of dispute. 14. Part IVA dealing with fundamental duties was inserted in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Article 51A deals with fundamental duties of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all sections of the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities. Under Article 51A(f), it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. Respect for divergent religious beliefs is an essential part and feature of our Constitution. There might be fundamental differences in the religious approach of the two streams as noted above, but there can be no reason as to why the two streams can worship the same God in their own way but in a common place. 15. Respect for divergent religious beliefs is an essential part and feature of our Constitution. There might be fundamental differences in the religious approach of the two streams as noted above, but there can be no reason as to why the two streams can worship the same God in their own way but in a common place. 15. Without deliberating further on the subject and continuing with the spirit of the previous orders as noted above, Court is of the view that Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) should now step in and bring both the sides i.e., petitioner and respondent No. 5 to the negotiating table and find out a solution which, apparently, is not so impractical. All options should be explored including construction of a doubled storied or multi storied building where one floor can be used for the temple and the other floor can be used for the Namghar. Perhaps, it was keeping with such sentiment that the Government had allotted the plot of land to both the groups but it is unfortunate that the same spirit or the same spirit of accommodation has not been shown. Therefore, without any re-crimination, parties are left to amicably settle the matter, which should be assisted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) so that the plot of land allotted to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 can be usefully utilised for the purpose for which it was allotted. Let the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) call the first meeting of the two sides within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To facilitate such settlement, interim order passed on 26.04.2010 is vacated. With the hope and expectation that parties will amicably settle their dispute in a spirit of accommodation, this writ petition is finally disposed of. 16. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate for doing the needful.