No Statutory Requirement That Shebaits Must Seek Civil Court Permission For Developing Private Debuttar Property: Calcutta High Court

“Shebait is not a ‘trustee’ under the Indian Trusts Act – Section 34 is inapplicable; Shebaitship is a Hindu legal concept and development for deity’s benefit does not require court sanction.” - In a significant judgment reaffirming the managerial autonomy of Shebaits over private religious endowments, the Calcutta High Court on 12th November 2025 held that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) acted unlawfully in insisting that Shebaits of a private Debuttar estate must first obtain an order from a competent civil court before their building plan can be sanctioned.

Delivering the verdict in Sree Sree Ishwar Janardhan Jew represented through its Shebaits v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (WPA 17502 of 2024), Justice Gaurang Kanth quashed the impugned refusal notice of the Corporation and directed the municipal authority to process the building plan strictly under applicable building laws within 8 weeks.

The Court’s ruling clarified that such development does not constitute alienation and therefore does not invoke any statutory embargo or judicial requirement for prior permission.

“Municipality has no jurisdiction to demand court order before processing building plan of Debuttar property – Its function is purely administrative, not judicial”

The core legal issue in the case revolved around whether Shebaits of a private Debuttar property were required to approach a civil court for permission to develop a property dedicated to a deity. The High Court answered in the negative, holding that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing such a requirement.

Justice Kanth held:

“There is no statutory requirement under any law obligating Shebaits to seek prior permission of a Civil Court for every act of management, including development or improvement of the Deity’s property” [Para 29].

The Court emphasized that Shebaits, under Hindu law, are neither mere agents nor trustees in the sense of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Referring to Section 1 of the Act, the Court noted:

“Private religious endowments are governed by traditional Hindu law and not by the Indian Trusts Act. Therefore, the Respondent’s reliance on Section 34 is misconceived and contrary to settled legal doctrine” [Para 30].

This finding invalidates the foundation of KMC’s objection, which was predicated on the assumption that the development amounted to an alienation requiring court sanction.

A Dispute Rooted in Municipal Overreach and Religious Trust Autonomy

The case arose from KMC’s notice dated 09.05.2024, requiring the Petitioner (a private religious endowment representing the deity Sree Sree Ishwar Janardhan Jew) to obtain a civil court’s permission before a building plan for developing the Debuttar property at 59A, B.T. Road, Kolkata could be sanctioned.

The Debuttar in question was established by a Deed of Dedication (Arpannama) on 09.11.1964, whereby three members of the Sinha family permanently dedicated the said premises to the deity. The Arpannama appointed their male heirs as Shebaits, to manage the property jointly for the benefit of the deity. The Shebaits had entered into a development agreement with a private builder due to financial constraints affecting the sustainability of the worship and maintenance.

Despite the submission of all required documents, including a No Objection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, KMC issued the impugned notice, refusing to proceed unless a civil court order was produced.

Administrative Authority Cannot Demand What Law Doesn’t Require

The High Court identified two principal issues:

1. Whether Shebaits of a private Debuttar need prior civil court permission to develop the deity’s property;
2. Whether the Municipal Corporation can refuse to process a building plan based on this alleged requirement.

The Court answered both in the negative. Drawing on precedents such as Shakuntala Devi Dalmia v. Howrah Municipal Corporation (2009 SCC OnLine Cal 2375), Kunal Kumar Adhikary v. KMC (MAT 2506 of 2023), and Risabh Ruia v. Nirmal Mukherjee (2019 SCC OnLine Cal 998), the Court affirmed that Shebaits enjoy inherent authority to develop property, provided it benefits the deity.

Referring to the Mohinder Singh Gill doctrine, the Court also struck down KMC’s attempt to justify its notice by introducing fresh reasons during litigation:

“An administrative or quasi-judicial authority cannot supplement or improve its impugned order by adducing fresh reasons during the course of litigation” [Para 14].

Thus, any additional objections raised during proceedings – beyond those contained in the original notice – were held to be impermissible.

Distinction Between Preservation and Alienation: Development Not Barred Under Law

Rejecting the Respondent Municipality’s contention that development was akin to alienation, the Court clearly held:

“The development proposed by the Shebaits is not an act of alienation but one of preservation and beneficial utilization of the Deity’s property” [Para 36].

This distinction is pivotal, as many of the cases relied on by the Respondent pertained to alienation, sale, or transfer of endowment property. The Court clarified that those precedents were distinguishable and had no application to the facts at hand.

Municipality Cannot Adjudicate Shebaitship Disputes or Question Arpannama

On the question of whether the Municipality could raise doubts about the legitimacy or authority of the Shebaits, the Court was unequivocal:

“It is not within the statutory competence of the Municipality to question the validity of the Deed of Dedication or Rectification. The role of the Municipality is purely administrative in nature” [Para 34].

Even if there had been rival claimants to Shebaitship (which the Court noted was not the case here), the Municipality had no jurisdiction to resolve such disputes.

KMC’s Objections Declared Arbitrary – Court Directs Processing of Building Plan Within 8 Weeks

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned notice and directing KMC to take a final decision on the building plan application within 8 weeks. The Court’s ruling reinforces the legal autonomy of Shebaits managing private Debuttar properties and provides an authoritative interpretation of the limits of municipal authority in such contexts.

“Accordingly, the Respondent Municipality is directed to forthwith process and consider the Petitioner’s building plan application… and to take a final decision thereon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.” [Para 36]

The ruling is a reaffirmation of religious endowment autonomy, administrative propriety, and the separation of powers in land-use governance concerning temple properties.

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025