9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1965 - SC - Indian LawsTransfer of deity - the property of Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan 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 on 25.02.1948 - 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. HELD THAT - The High Court has passed an order directing investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation by casually returning a finding that permission was obtained by the Trust by misrepresentation and fraud. The High Court was again not careful to return findings on the disputed questions of fact and that too in a public interest writ petition - The vesting of the property in Deity is a religious endowment but has no public element in it, the grievance of which can be made in a writ petition filed in the public interest. We do not say any more than the fact that the High Court should have refrained from entertaining such Public Interest Litigation in respect of alleged wrongful sale of property of the religious bodies. The question as to whether the High Court could direct CBI to take over investigation in the facts of the present case needs to be examined. The Constitution Bench in its judgment reported as State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others 2010 (2) TMI 1118 - SUPREME COURT has examined the question as to the rights of CBI to investigate a criminal offence in a State without its consent. This Court examined Entry 2 of List II of VII Schedule of the Constitution. It was held that the legislative power of the Union to provide for the regular police force of one State to exercise power and jurisdiction in any area outside the State can only be exercised with the consent of the Government of that particular State in which such area is situated. A three Judge Bench Judgment reported as SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHU VERSUS STATE OF KERALA ORS. 2016 (5) TMI 1594 - SUPREME COURT held that the extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially, when there is lack of confidence in the investigating agency or in the national interest. The finding recorded by the High Court that the Deity could not transfer its land in any case is not tenable. The appellant relies upon statutory provisions in support of its stand to transfer of land. The sweeping remarks that the allegations are against the Government and the Board which consist of Government functionaries; therefore, the matter requires to be investigated by CBI are wholly untenable and such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or the Board should not have been made - merely because, permission has been granted by a functionary of the State Government will not disclose a criminal offence. The High Court has thus travelled much beyond its jurisdiction in directing investigations by CBI in a matter of sale of property of the Deity. Still further, the High Court has issued directions without their being any complaint to the local police in respect of the property of the religious Trust. The High Court has completely misdirected itself in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation in a matter which relates to the rights of the trustees to sell property of a religious Trust or Deity, giving rise to civil dispute. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of the deity's land. 2. High Court's direction for CBI investigation. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Applicability of Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. 5. Conditions for directing CBI investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Transfer of the Deity's Land: The High Court of Jharkhand found that the property of Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan Mandir at Ranchi had been transferred against the mandate of the original Trust Deed created in 1948. The Trust Deed of 1987 also prohibited the Trustees from selling or transferring the land. However, a new Trust Deed created in 2005 allowed for the sale of landed property, which was challenged as being prepared with ulterior motives to usurp the property of the Deity. The High Court held that the transfer of the deity's land was illegal and needed investigation. 2. High Court's Direction for CBI Investigation: The High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter, citing large-scale illegality and involvement of government functionaries. It referenced a previous case (WP(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011) where the CBI was directed to investigate similar issues. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the matter involved government officials and the Board, thus necessitating an independent investigation by the CBI. 3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, these powers must be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench judgment in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, which held that the High Court should exercise its extraordinary power sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations to instill confidence in the investigation or when the incident has national or international ramifications. 4. Applicability of Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950: Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, allows for the transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after obtaining previous sanction from the Board and approval from the District Judge. The appellants argued that they had obtained the necessary approvals as contemplated by the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have created suspicion regarding the transfer of the deity's land when statutory provisions were followed. 5. Conditions for Directing CBI Investigation: The Supreme Court reiterated that directing a CBI investigation should be based on sufficient material that discloses a prima facie case. The Court referenced several judgments, including Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, and Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala, which held that such power should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases. The Court found that the High Court had misdirected itself in ordering a CBI investigation without any complaint to the local police and without examining the complexities of the case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the CBI to investigate the matter. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and that the matter involved a civil dispute regarding the rights of the trustees to sell the property of a religious Trust or Deity. The writ petition was dismissed.
|
