2017 (6) TMI 1380 - HC - Indian Laws

Illegal transfer of property of Trust - misappropriation of property of deity - HELD 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 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 is well settled principle that fraud vitiates everything - in the trust deed of 1987 there was a specific bar of transfer or sale of properties. If that be the situation then how in the year 1994 a permission was obtained and subsequent connected action was taken by the trustees to transfer the properties. All these actions genuinely create a great doubt about the intention of the trustees and prima facie this Court feels that the deed of 2005 was prepared against the wishes of the founder of the trust with some ulterior motive. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) is directed to investigate and take appropriate action at the earliest and conclude the same preferably within six months from today. All the parties will cooperate with the investigation. The State should take all consequent action for restoring the lands in favour of the deity depending upon the final outcome of the C.B.I. investigation. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged illegal transfer of property belonging to Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust.
2. Validity of the trust deeds of 1987 and 2005.
3. Alleged conspiracy and fraud in obtaining approvals for property transfer.
4. Role of the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board and the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.
5. Necessity of an independent investigation by an agency other than the state.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Illegal Transfer of Property:
The petitioner contended that the property of Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust was illegally transferred for personal benefits. The trust, established in 1948, was meant to manage the deity's properties, and there was no provision in the original trust deed to transfer or sell the property. The petitioner alleged that the 1987 trust deed was canceled and a new deed in 2005 was executed with the ulterior motive of misappropriating the deity's property.

2. Validity of the Trust Deeds of 1987 and 2005:
The original trust deed of 1948 did not provide for the formation of a new trust after its cancellation. The 1987 deed, which canceled the 1948 deed, prohibited the sale or transfer of the trust's property. However, the 2005 trust deed, prepared by Mahanth Shreeram Sharan Das, allowed for the conversion and sale of the property, which was against the wishes of the original founder. The court noted that Mahanth Shreeram Sharan Das was not the founder of the trust and questioned the legality of the 2005 deed.

3. Alleged Conspiracy and Fraud in Obtaining Approvals:
The petitioner alleged that the approval for converting the trust's property was obtained from the Board of Religious Trust and the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by suppressing material facts. The court found that the 2005 trust deed, which allowed for the conversion and sale of the property, was created with an ulterior motive. The court also noted that the permission granted by the Board in 1994 was suspicious as it contradicted the 1987 deed, which prohibited such actions.

4. Role of the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board and the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi:
The court examined the role of the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board and the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in granting approvals for the property transfer. The court found that the permission granted by the Board in 1994 was likely obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. The court emphasized that fraud vitiates everything and that any order obtained through fraudulent means cannot be sustained.

5. Necessity of an Independent Investigation:
Given the serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud, the court concluded that the matter required a thorough investigation by an independent agency. The court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to investigate the criminal aspects of the case, including the creation of the 2005 trust deed, the transfer/conversion of land, and the approval of maps. The court instructed the C.B.I. to conclude the investigation within six months and take appropriate action.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the C.B.I. to investigate the matter and take necessary actions to restore the lands to the deity, depending on the investigation's outcome. The court emphasized the need to protect the property of the deity and ensure that any fraudulent actions are addressed appropriately.