JUDGMENT S Kumar, J. - Heard the parties. 2. These miscellaneous appeals have been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 3.7.2014 passed in Miscellaneous case No. 86 of 2012 and Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Patna dismissing the miscellaneous cases filed by appellants under Section 32(3) of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act". 3. According to appellants, Temple of Shri Sheetla Mata is situated from time immemorial and since time immemorial worship and management of temple is being performed by family members privately and individually over plot nos.533, 534, 537, Khata No.121 comprising an area of 13 kathas 9 dhurs and 5 dhurkies in Agamkuan, Patna and over plot no. 534, measuring 3 kathas, 6 durs, 7 dhurki Sheetla Mata Mandir is situated. 4. On 16th February, 1911, cadastral survey was finally published and name of Chamru Lal Bhagat, ancestor of appellants was entered in the khatiyan as Shebait. In the year 1933, Chamaru Lal Bhagat died and his sons became Shebait and in the year 1947 Lal Babu Mali and Bangali Mali became Shebait of the Temple. 5. Temple in question is private temple and has never been vested in Religious Trust Board and all the time, Shebaitship was inherited by the heirs of late Chamru Lal Bhagat, however, Temple was opened for public in 1947 when chicken pox spread and patients were treated by appellants' family by applying water of the well and leaf of Neam tree standing in the compound. 6. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust issued notification dated 1.7.2006 vide memo no.1739 dated 3.7.2006 whereby a scheme for better management of Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir, Agamkuan, Patna was notified in exercise of power conferred under Section 32(1) of the Act and said notification was challenged by the appellants under Section 32 (3) of the said Act before the District Judge, Patna giving rise to two miscellaneous cases as referred above. 7. It was stated by the appellants in their application that two full brother Lal Babu Pujari and Bengali Pujari, sons of late Ram Kishun Mali are Shebaits of Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir and as such are persons interested in the management and affair of temple and are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 32 (3) of the said Act. 8. 8. Lal Babu Pujari filed miscellaneous case No.12/2007 whereas another brother Bengali Pujari filed Miscellaneous Case No.86/2012 under Section 32 (3) of the Act challenging the aforesaid notification issued by the Administrator -cum-OSD of Religious Trust Board before the District Judge, Patna against the same order. 9. Two issues were framed and decided by the court below ,i..e. (i) Whether the committee has been properly constituted? (ii) Whether Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir is a public trust? 10. As far as first issue is concerned, challenge to the notification dated 1.7.2016 whereby a scheme had been framed for proper administration of Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir, Agamkuan, Patna as well as constitution of 11-Member committee for its proper management as per scheme framed is concerned, two miscellaneous cases were filed, however, during pendency of miscellaneous case, the Board dissolved said Committee by the order dated 24.6.2009 under Section 29 (2) of the Act and a fresh committee was constituted as such first issue became infructuous. Moreover, appellants had not made members of Committee as party respondents in proceeding as such their petition was also bad for non-joinder of necessary party and on said ground itself, miscellaneous cases were fit to be rejected. 11. As far as second issue is concerned, whether Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir, Agamkuan, Patna is private temple or public temple, it is gathered from the materials available on record that Shri Sheetla Mata Mandir, Agamkuan, Patna is situated over C.S. Plot No.534 which is recorded in cadastral survey khatiyan as gairmajarua aam land which indicates nature of temple to be a public temple. 12. In C.S. Khatiyan landlord with respect to plot in question was Syed Md. Mehndi Hasan and nature of the land as gairmajarua aam and remark column shows as Sheetla Asthan Shebait Chamru Lal Bhagat. Accordingly, ancestors of appellants were neither title holder nor founder of the temple but they can claim right to hold the office of shebaitship and for which several litigations were fought among rival contenders claiming themselves to be Shebaits of Temple. However, in such litigations, whether temple is a private temple or a public temple was neither an issue nor decided by the civil court in said civil (Title) suit. 13. Temple has been declared monument under Asian Monument Preservation Act, 1904. 14. However, in such litigations, whether temple is a private temple or a public temple was neither an issue nor decided by the civil court in said civil (Title) suit. 13. Temple has been declared monument under Asian Monument Preservation Act, 1904. 14. Appellants being trustees of the temple have been submitting return of income and expenditure as such trustees have accepted the superintendent of the Religious Trust Board. Appellants are registered with the Board having registration No. 3677. 15. In title suit No.303 of 1976 in which Bihar Religious Trust Board was also a party and where there was dispute with respect to office of shebaitship between two rival contenders, appellants produced receipt granted by Religious Trust Board and produced payment of fees to the Religious Trust Board and copy of return submitted by them to the Board in support of their claim to be Shebait, as such, they are estopped assailing the nature and character of the temple to be other than public temple. 16. The court below after considering and appreciating several documents placed before it found the temple to be public religious trusts and the Board of Religious Trust has right to supervise the administration of such Trusts (Temple) and can take necessary steps under the provisions of Act for its proper management and dismissed both the miscellaneous cases being devoid of any merit. 17. The Sr. Counsel for Religious Trust Board has relied upon a judgment and order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.1433 of 2012, in which it has been held that in a proceeding against the Trust, all the trustees have to be made party and petition can be dismissed on sole ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Division Bench in said judgment have held that in absence of all the trustees, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the impugned order is thus a nullity. The Sr. Counsel for the Board has also relied upon a judgment dated 26.10.1967 of this Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No.650 of 1967 (Mundrika Kuer Vs. President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and Ors.) in support of his contention that Religious Trust Board has jurisdiction to decide the nature of temple whether it is public or private within meaning of Section 2 (l) of the Act. 18. President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and Ors.) in support of his contention that Religious Trust Board has jurisdiction to decide the nature of temple whether it is public or private within meaning of Section 2 (l) of the Act. 18. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record and perusing the order passed by the court below, this Court does not find any irregularity, error or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous appeals are dismissed.