SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN MANDIR & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4003 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT of SLP (C) No. 24177 of 2017)
Decided on : 01-05-2019
(b) Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 - Section 44 r/w Section 28 (j) - power of transfer of property of religious trust with previous sanction of Board. (Para 11)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 226 - High Court having power to direct inquiry by CBI - But such power can be exercised, though sparingly, only if the Court comes to prima facie conclusion on basis of sufficient material that there is need for such inquiry. (Para 13, 15)
(2010) 3 SCC 571; (2002) 5 SCC 521; (2016) 7 SCC 597; (2013) 12 SCC 480; (2018) 15 SCC 480; (2011) 12 SCC 328 - Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Inquiry by CBI - Holding that Deity could not transfer its land in any case High Court doubting bona fide of the government and the Board - No police complaint - High Court directing CBI inquiry - Not tenable. (Para 19)
(e) Constitution of India - Article 226 r/w List II, Schedule VII - Entry 1 (public order) and Entry 2 (police) - State subjects - State police primarily responsible for inquiry - Inquiry can be entrusted to CBI in exceptional circumstances - Not in a routine manner. (Para 20)
(2010) 3 SCC 571 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The property of Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan Mandir [Mandir] at Ranchi has been transferred against the mandate of the Trust Deed created by the author of the Trust to establish Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust [Trust]. The High Court entertained the Public Interest Litigation preferred by Respondent No. 8, and held that there is no provision in the original Trust Deed to transfer/sale of the property of the Deity but with ulterior motive, new Trust Deed was prepared in the year 2005 to usurp the property of the Deity and to facilitate illegal transfer of land of the Deity.
The High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and to take appropriate action at the earliest and conclude the investigations preferably within six months.
Finding of the Court:
Order of the High Court is not tenable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on 07.06.2017 directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and to take appropriate action at the earliest and conclude the investigations preferably within six months. The High Court held as under:-
"......This Court is of prima facie view that land of the deity could not have been transferred in any case. This large scale illegality needs to be enquired into. Now the question is, who will do so? The land and trust which is involved in this case is of Ranchi. Allegation is against the Government and the Board. Board consists of Government functionaries. In this case, another issue is illegally sanctioning of map by Government Officials. We find, as submitted by the petitioner that in one Public Interest Litigation being WP(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 (Har Narain Lakhotia Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) this Court directed the CBI to enquire/investigate the criminality part in giving such sanction in respect of many buildings of Ranchi. The said order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is also one of such case, which needs investigation.
16. On this background, this Court feels that this matter be also entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating the criminality part. This would also include the aspects and the intent involved in creation of Trust Deed dated 20.9.2005, transfer/conversion of land, permission of maps and all other incidental issues involved."
2. The said directions were issued finding that the property of Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan Mandir [Mandir] at Ranchi has been transferred against the mandate of the Trust Deed created by the author of the Trust to establish Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust [Trust] on 25.02.1948. The said Trust was reconstituted on 12.05.1987 by virtue of registered deed. Still further, by another deed dated 20.09.2005, there was again reconstitution of the Trust.
3. The High Court entertained the Public Interest Litigation preferred by Respondent No. 8, and held that there is no provision in the original Trust Deed to transfer/sale of the property of the Deity but with ulterior motive, new Trust Deed was prepared in the year 2005 to usurp the property of the Deity and to facilitate illegal transfer of land of the Deity.
4. The directions issued by the High Court are subject matter of challenge before this Court by the Trust and by Pujari of the Mandir. The argument is that there is provision to develop and transfer the property of the Deity. Some of the properties of the Trust were being illegally encroached by local inhabitants and for better return and to increase the funds, the properties were transferred. The appropriate approvals have been obtained from Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and that the learned Judicial Commissioner has granted approval of transfer of immovable property.
5. The High Court found that properties were endowed to the Deity by the Trust Deed of 1948 and that the Trustees became custodian of the same. The subsequent Trust Deed of 1987 again prohibits the Trustees from selling or transferring or settling a land of the Mandir or Deity. The Trust Deed of 1948 and that of 1987 were authored by Mahant Shri Janki Jiwan Sharan but subsequently on 20.09.2005 a new Trust Deed has been created. Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dass registered the said Trust Deed though the founder was Late Janki Jiwan Sharan. The said Trust Deed has a clause by which landed property can be sold.
6. The High Court found that the permission of Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board granted in the year 2006 was based upon permission granted by Bihar State Board of Religious Trust in the year 1994 which was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.
7. The writ petitioner has invoked the Public Interest Jurisdiction of the High Court, inter-alia claiming the following reliefs:-
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate w
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya
Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala
K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.