TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies are being mismanaged, it was felt necessary to cancel the earlier deed of trust and reconstitute a fresh one. This was the background of constituting and registering the fresh trust deed of 1987. Clause 9 of the trust deed of 1987 clearly prohibits the committee/sevayat or any one from selling or transferring or settling any land of the temple/deity. The Founder of the Trust deed of 1948 and that of 1987 was Mahanth Shree Janki Jivan Sharan, Chela-late Sri Ramdas Paramhans. Suddenly, on 20.9.2005, a separate deed was created and registered. From perusal of 2005 trust deed, one can understand that since some of the old trustees died or some of them are unable to perform the duty, it is necessary to reconstitute it. This Court, prima facie, feels that this permission of the Board obtained in the year 1994 is by misrepresentation/fraud. This permission became the basis of the order of the Judicial Commissioner. An act, which is prima facie, bad and fraudulent in nature, cannot get validation by the order of the Judicial Commissioner. Thus, prima facie, the order of the Judicial Commissioner, which may be based on misrepresentation and fraudulent act, cannot be relied upon. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said trust deed was reconstituted vide registered deed dated 20.9.2005 by cancelling the earlier trust deed dated 12.5.1987. It is further case of the petitioner that by cancelling the earlier trust deeds and by executing a fresh deed on 20.9.2005, grave illegalities have been committed with a mala fide intention and the property of the deity is being squandered, misappropriated and was sold/transferred for personal benefits of few persons. As per the petitioner, the property belong to the deity and for managing and maintaining the same, the trust was formed and there was no provision in the original trust deed to transfer/sale the property of the deity. It is further case of the petitioner that with ulterior motive, the deed of 1987 has been cancelled and new deed of 2005 has been prepared only for the purpose of usurping the properties of the deity to facilitate illegal transfer of the land. He further submits that for private interest, the immovable properties of the religious trust are being sold and transferred by hatching a great conspiracy just to take away the properties of the deity. The further case of the petitioner is that the trust in question has been endowed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court to protect the property of the deity. Since a large scale conspiracy with a criminal intent has been hatched by several persons to usurp and misappropriate the property of the deity, it is necessary to investigate the conspiracy by an independent Investigating Agency and thereafter, take an appropriate action against the persons involved. The counsel for the petitioner, to strengthen his submission, has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan 85 (Temple of Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). 3. An intervention application was filed on behalf of one Mahanth Ram Sharan Das, Pujari of the Tapowan Mandir on the ground to implead him as party respondent since the outcome of the writ petition is going to affect the right of the intervener. The intervener filed several documents and he was allowed to assist the court on all the issues basing on all documents filed by him to his satisfaction. It was submitted by the intervener that as per the trust deed, there is a provision to develop and transfer the property of the deity. It is further submitted that some of the properties of the Trust were being illegally encroached by the local inh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. In 1987, a fresh Trust deed was constituted by cancelling the deed of 1948. The said deed has also been produced by the intervener. The said trust deed of 1987 bears the reference of the trust deed of 1948. From the recital of the same, it is clear that it is an admitted fact that the properties were endowed to the deity i.e. Shree Ram Jankiji and the trust was formed in 1948 for the purpose of serving the deity and also for managing the properties of the deity. From recital of the trust deed, it is also quite clear that the property belongs to the deity, which has been mentioned in 1987 deed that since unwarranted elements have entered into the Committee and the properties are being mismanaged, it was felt necessary to cancel the earlier deed of trust and reconstitute a fresh one. This was the background of constituting and registering the fresh trust deed of 1987. Clause 9 of the trust deed of 1987 clearly prohibits the committee/sevayat or any one from selling or transferring or settling any land of the temple/deity. The Founder of the Trust deed of 1948 and that of 1987 was Mahanth Shree Janki Jivan Sharan, Chela-late Sri Ramdas Paramhans. Suddenly, on 20.9.2005, a separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fourth of its members and resolution of the Board is approved by the District Judge. Thus from the aforementioned provision, we find that though the power is vested upon the Board to approve the conversion but the said conversion must be for the benefit of the Trust and must be resolved by a majority of the Board members which should include at least three fourth of its member and the said resolution of the Board must be approved by the District Judge. Section 28(g) of the Act is also an important provision which provides that the Board must give directions for the proper administration of a religious trust in accordance with the law governing such trust and as per the wishes of the founder in so far as such wishes can be ascertained and are not repugnant to such law. It means the wish of the founder is supreme, if it can be ascertained by the document. 8. From the trust deed 1987, it is quite clear that the wish of the founder of the trust was that the properties of the trust could not be sold. This wish was given go-by by subsequent trust deed of 2005. The deed of 2005, as mentioned earlier, shows that Mahanth Shreeram Sharan Das as a founder, who, in fact, was not the founder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board. From perusal of the said letter, it appears that pursuant to a letter of Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board dated 4.12.1994, the permission is granted to convert the land of the trust by constructing flats and buildings over the landed properties of the Trust. The letter of 13.6.2006 is signed by the President of the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board. Nowhere in the said letter it is stated that the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board has permitted for conversion of the land of the deity. Even if such order is there, the same derives the authority of 2005 Trust deed which itself is under cloud. The Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board relies upon a letter of 1994 of the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board. It is appropriate to point out that in the year 1994, the trust deed which existed did not authorize the trust to sell/transfer the properties of the Trust. In the year 1994 the deed, which was in operation, was the deed of 1987. Paragraph 9 of the deed of 1987 clearly restricts and prohibits the transfer/mortgage of the land of the trust. That being so, it is highly suspicious as to how the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of some of the persons de hors the interest of the deity. It is also necessary to investigate whether there was actual fraud committed by any person or any member of the Committee or not. 13. Further comparing the schedule of properties/land of 1948 deed with the deed of 2005, we understand that the extent of land has diminished from 19 acres to 7 acres. This also suggests that the transfer of the land has taken place. Moreover, it is an admitted case that lands have been transferred. 14. From over all facts, we find that prima facie, the 2005 deed which was prepared by one of the Committee member posing him to be the founder, is not proper. On what real consideration the same was prepared needs to be found out. Was it only for the purpose of selling/transferring the lands? If so, then it is a criminal offence to squander the lands of the deity. Further the schedule of land, could not have been changed, unless some transfer had taken place. Here admittedly transfer had taken place. Then another question arises as to how the properties of the deity got transferred? Who were the persons behind this? This also needs to be found out. Another aspect is how the State authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
