SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN MANDIR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 01-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN
MANDIR & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.4003 of 2019)
MAY  01, 2019
  [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
        HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Investigation: Transfer of land of deity – Public Interest
Litigation by respondent No. 8 challenging the transfer – No
grievance was made by respondent No. 8 to any public authority in
respect of the alleged transfer by the Trustees nor any report was
lodged before the concerned police station making grievance of
any one of the facts stated in the writ petition so as to initiate the
process of investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code –  High
Court held that there is no provision in the original Trust Deed to
transfer the property of the Deity but new Trust Deed was prepared
with ulterior motive, to usurp the property of the Deity and to facilitate
illegal transfer of land of the Deity –  High Court further held that
there was large scale illegality which required to be enquired into
and directed the CBI to enquire/investigate the criminality part in
giving such sanction – In the instant appeal, the Trust and the Pujari
of the Mandir challenged the directions of High Court on the ground
that the Board of Religious Trust had granted approval for transfer
of the property – Held: s.44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act,
1950 gives power of transfer of immovable property of a religious
trust after taking previous sanction from the Board – Such permission
is to convert any property of the Trust after approval of the District
Judge as provided by s.28 (j) of the Act – Thus, High Court was not
justified in creating a suspicion on an act of transferring the land
of the Deity – 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 – High
Court passed an order directing investigation by CBI by casually
returning a finding that permission was obtained by the Trust by
misrepresentation and fraud – High Court completely misdirected
[2019] 8 S.C.R. 137
 137
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
itself in directing the CBI to take over investigation in a matter which
related to the rights of the trustees to sell property of a religious
Trust or Deity, giving rise to civil dispute – The order of the High
Court is set aside – Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 – s.44 –
Public Interest Litigation – Trust – Religious endowment.
Constitution of India: Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 1 and 2
– Transfer of land of deity – Challenge to the said transfer – High
Court held that there was large scale illegality which required to be
enquired into and directed the CBI to investigate – Held:  The public
order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is a State subject falling in
List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution – It is a primary
responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to
investigate all offences which are committed within its jurisdiction
– The investigations can be entrusted to CBI only in exceptional
circumstances – Such power cannot and should not be exercised in
a routine manner without examining the complexities and nature of
offence  – Trust – Religious endowment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court ought to have refrained from
entertaining such Public Interest Litigation in respect of alleged
wrongful sale of property of the religious bodies.  Section 44 of
the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 gives power of transfer
of immovable property of a religious trust after taking previous
sanction from the Board.  Such permission is to convert any
property of the Trust after approval of the District Judge as
provided by Section 28 (j) of the Act.  The stand of the appellants
is that they have obtained approval as contemplated by the Act
and such approval has been sought as an act of prudent
management.  Therefore, the High Court was not justified in
creating a suspicion on an act of transferring the land of the Deity.
[Paras 10, 11] [143-C-E]
2.   The finding recorded by the High Court that the Deity
could not transfer its land in any case is not tenable. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
and such sweeping remarks against the Government a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.