Book Title: Jinamanjari 1998 09 No 18
Author(s): Jinamanjari
Publisher: Canada Bramhi Jain Society Publication

Previous | Next

Page 3
________________ EDITORIAL In our last volume of Jinamanjari, Vol.17, No, 1 April 1998, there carried an editorial regarding Sammed Shikarji and the report of the judgement on the contentious issue of the ownership of the shrine. As the reported disposal of the case by the Supreme Court of India, new information from the other side of the contention has been received by us. This has come to us through the courtesy of Dr. Padmanabh S.Jaini, Professor Emiritus of Buddhist Studies, University of California at Berkeley. The new information originated at Institute of Jainology, Ahmedabad, India. Here we reproduce it for the interest of the readers: "While we appreciate your desire to acquaint your readers with the relevant developments [on the matter], may we draw your attention to some factual inaccuracies therein? .... the judgement of Single Judge of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court delivered in July 1977, (against whom the appeals are admitted by the Division Bench of the same court and are still not taken up) held that the mountain was covered by Bihar Land Reforms Act and as such vested in the Govt. of Bihar, no particular sect can claim exclusive rights. It went on to add (in para 232) that Digambaras do not have even a semblance of a right there. The court held the view that as Digambaras have equal right of worship in a limited number of tonks on Sammed Shikarji they should also be associated in a committee of management, formation of which the court suggested. The Division bench, while admitting our appeals, turned this suggestion into a direction. It is against this direction that we went to the Supreme court [which] did not even mention about the land act of that state and only said that as the direction to form a joint committee is only an interim order of the High Court, the Supreme Court would not interfere. Jain Education International The judgement dated 6.11.97 given by the Supreme Court was as follows: 'Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that the impugned order of the High Court is interim in nature which For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 76