Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. Joseph & U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Pramod Nautiyal and another - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2011
Decided On : 18-12-2015
Writ Petition - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Petitioners claiming to be President of Working Journalist Union and a religious person having keen interest in protection of Bharat Ji Temple Trust - Petitioners seeking direction to State Government to take all necessary steps for protection of property of Temple and to appoint Receiver - Temple alleged to be very old religious charitable Trust exempted from Income Tax - Petitioners alleging that land donated to Temple on condition that Manager/Mahant of Temple shall have no right to sell and transfer property - Petitioners alleging that Mahant has executed several lease deeds in favour of his family members and his family members sold the same to other persons and in collusion with Revenue Authorities, family members of Mahant have got their names recorded in revenue records and on basis of entries in revenue records, family members of Mahant and Mahant himself are selling property of Temple for their personal benefits - Petitioners alleging that property of Temple is being misused by sale and transfer by present Mahant and there are inquiries and it is on said basis essentially that relief was sought - State Government opposing writ petition and raising various grounds including maintainability - Court holding that petitioners were completely unjustified in approaching Court with relief sought in writ petition - Court observing that allegations made by petitioners were made without reference to facts brought out in counter affidavit and which were referred to by Court - Court further observing that petitioners failed to make out a case as such and that even otherwise, in a case where matter is put in issue and there is very serious dispute raised, as has been done in this case, Court should be loathe to extend a helping hand to so called public interest litigant - Court dismissing writ petition with cost of Rs. 30,000/- to be given to Uttarakhand High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claiming to be President of Working Journalist Union and a religious person having keen interest in protection of Bharat Ji Temple Trust filed writ petition seeking direction to State Government to take all necessary steps for protection of property of Temple and to appoint Receiver - Temple alleged to be very old religious charitable Trust exempted from Income Tax - Petitioners alleging that land donated to Temple on condition that Manager/Mahant of Temple shall have no right to sell and transfer property - Petitioners alleging that Mahant has executed several lease deeds in favour of his family members and his family members sold the same to other persons and in collusion with Revenue Authorities, family members of Mahant have got their names recorded in revenue records and on basis of entries in revenue records, family members of Mahant and Mahant himself are selling property of Temple for their personal benefits - Petitioners alleging that property of Temple is being misused by sale and transfer by present Mahant and there are inquiries and it is on said basis essentially that relief was sought - State Government opposing writ petition and raising various grounds including maintainability.
Finding of the Court:
Court holding that petitioners were completely unjustified in approaching Court with relief sought in writ petition - Court observing that allegations made by petitioners were made without reference to facts brought out in counter affidavit and which were referred to by Court - Court further observing that petitioners failed to make out a case as such and that even otherwise, in a case where matter is put in issue and there is very serious dispute raised, as has been done in this case, Court should be loathe to extend a helping hand to so called public interest litigant.
Issues: Maintainability of writ petition - Whether petitioners had locus standi to file writ petition - Whether petitioners had made out a case for grant of relief sought - Whether Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution in facts of case.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that petitioners were completely unjustified in approaching Court with relief sought in writ petition - Court observed that allegations made by petitioners were made without reference to facts brought out in counter affidavit and which were referred to by Court - Court further observed that petitioners failed to make out a case as such and that even otherwise, in a case where matter is put in issue and there is very serious dispute raised, as has been done in this case, Court should be loathe to extend a helping hand to so called public interest litigant.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 30,000/- to be given to Uttarakhand High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.
K.M. Joseph, J.
1. This is a writ petition purporting to invoke the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of this Court filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are two petitioners. The prayers sought by them are as follows :-
“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Government to take all the necessary steps for the protection of the property of Shri Bharat Ji Temple, Trust situated in Khasra Nos. 276, 84, 74, 279, and 298 of Tehsil Rishikesh;
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the Receiver for protection of the property of Shri Bharat Ji Temple, Trust;”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows :-
Petitioner No.1 is the President of Working Journalist Union, Rishikesh, whereas petitioner No. 2 is a religious person, who has a keen interest in the protection of Bharat Ji Temple Trust. It is stated that the question of law, which arises for consideration in the present petition, is that, whether the land which was given to a temple on donation and is exceeding the ceiling limit after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 will vest in the Government or not ? It is also stated that Shri Bharat Ji Temple, Trust is a very old religious charitable Trust, exempted from Income Tax under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The present Manager/Mahant of the said Trust Shri Ashok Prapanna Sharma, grand son of Late Mahant Paras Ram is getting Rs. 24,000/- per annum from the said Trust, thus he is the employee of the said Trust. It is their case that Shri Bharat Ji Mandir Trust is an ancient famous temple situated in Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The then King of Tehri donated 11,561 Bigha land to the said Shri Bharat Ji Temple Trust for its maintenance with certain terms and conditions laid down in the record of right (Wajib-ul-arz). According to the condition laid down in the said Wajib-ul-arz, the Manager/Mahant of Shri Bharat Mandir Trust, Rishikesh is called Numberdar (it should be read as Lambardar/Zamindar), who has no right to sell and transfer the property so donated to the Bharat Ji Mandir Trust. It is their case that Shri Parasram, Mahant of the Trust has executed several lease deeds in favour of his family members and his family members sold the same to other persons and in collusion with the Revenue Authorities, the family members of the Mahant have got their names recorded in the revenue records and on the basis of entries in the revenue records, the family members of the Mahant and Mahant himself are selling the property of Shri Bharat Ji Mandir Trust for their personal benefits. Annexure-3 purports to be copies of the lease deeds produced collectively. Reference is made to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which is alleged to have been made applicable to Rishikesh from 01.07.1952, but prior to the enforcement of the said Act, Mahant Parasram, grand father of the present Mahant (who is impleaded as the 5th respondent), has executed several lease deeds in the name of his family members. The illegalities were brought to the knowledge of the Secretary, Religious Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand by one Shri Rakesh Kumar Pandey and others. An inquiry was ordered and the Government of Uttarakhand issued a Government Order not to mutate the land in favour of anyone. There is also reference to another Government Order dated 30.07.2009 banning the registration of documents. There is reference to the reports of the Residential Magistrate (Annexure-8), Sub Divisional Magistrate (Annexure-9) and Government Order directing the District Magistrate to take action according to the record (Annexure-10). There is reference to suits filed under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952. It is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
