Allahabad High Court
Ram Janki Mandir Thr.Its Mahanth Swami ... vs State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Revenue, ... on 20 December, 2017
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON: 14.09.2017
DELIVERED ON: 20.12.2017
Court No. - 8
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 317 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ram Janki Mandir Thr.Its Mahanth Swami Prem Das & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Revenue, Civil Sectt.Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Girish Datt Pandey,Savita Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.A. Khan
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging inter alia an order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.) under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1953') and another order dated 25.11.2010 passed by him dismissing the review petition on the ground that it was not maintainable. Certain other reliefs have also been sought for declaring/quashing certain orders/transactions based on the decisions of the Consolidation Courts.
The petitioner no.1 is Ram Janki Mandir Pure Baba H/o Itura Bujurg, through its Mahanth Swami Prem Das, whereas petitioner no.2 is Swami Prem Das, Chela of Swami Satya Narain Das. The opposite party nos.9 and 10 are the contesting private respondents who are the transferees of the property bearing Old Plot No.270 and 1000 situated at Village Itura Bujurg, District Raebareli, the same having been gifted to them by Baba Satya Narain Das.
The dispute is essentially as to whether the aforesaid landed property belongs to the Deity or Baba Satya Narain Das who claimed to be its Sarvakar.
It is not in dispute that the land in question was earlier entered in the name of Baba Vrindavan Das who used to manage the temple and its properties. At some stage Baba Vrindavan Das is said to have moved an application before the Divisional Commissioner for entering the property in the name of the Deity so as to avoid hassles and disputes in this regard, which is said to have been allowed. After the death of Baba Vrindavan Das his disciple Baba Dineshwardas came to be recorded, however, on issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act 1953 as further proceedings arising out of the Mutation Proceedings in favour of Baba Dineshwardas were pending, the mutation proceedings stood abated, consequently objections were filed under section 9 of the Act 1953 before the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) for recording the name of the Deity in place of Baba Dineshwardas, whereas the latter claimed that he should be appointed Sarvarakar and that the property belonged to him, he, having inherited it from his Guru Baba Vrindavan Das. The Consolidation Officer ordered correction of the Basic Year Khatauni in favour of Baba Dineshwaranand and recording of the property in favour of the Deity, instead of him. The C.O. vide his order dated 2.7.1991 opined that the Consolidation Courts did not have jurisdiction to appoint Sarvakar and this was in the domain of the Civil Court. Furthermore, he recorded that Khata No.270 Bhumidhari and Khata No.1000 Sirdari belonged to the Deity, and not to Baba Dineshwardas. As Baba Dineshwardas had sold off some of the lands, therefore, the transferees had also filed their objections, whose claim to the same was also rejected by the same order. Being aggrieved Baba Dineshwardas and the transferees filed 5 separate appeals under section 11(1) of the Act 1953 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S.O.C.), who did not rule in favur of Baba Dineshwardas or his transferees.
Thereafter, a revision was filed before the D.D.C. under section 48 of the Act 1953 by Baba Dineshwardas. The Revisional Court also affirmed the orders of the C.O. and the S.O.C. Not being satisfied by the order, Dineshwardas filed a writ petition before the high Court bearing No.371 of 1974, certified copy of which, alongwith the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts referred hereinabove, was placed before the Court during the course of hearing and has been kept on record. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.9.1978. A copy of the said judgment is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition and is not in dispute.
The Writ Court took notice of that fact that the C.O. framed certain issues and after the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case, he, after taking into consideration the evidence and circumstances of the case, held that there was overwhelming evidence to the effect that Baba Vrindavan Das was only 'Sarvarakar' and the name of the petitioner Baba Dineshwaradas and the person holding the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed executed by the petitioner therein was ordered to be expunged. Against the order of the C.O. five appeals, including those by transferees of Baba Dineshwardas as also Ram Janki Mandir, were preferred. The S.O.C. partly allowed the appeals and directed that as the question of Sarvakar could not be decided by the Consolidation Authorities, which was the exclusive domain of the Civil Courts, the name of Baba Dineshwardas was to be expunged and the name of deceased Baba Vrindavandas was to continue till the matter was adjudicated by the competent Court of Law. In essence, the claim of Baba Dineshwardas that he was the Sarvakar and/or owner of the property in question was dismissed. This Court also took notice of order passed by the D.D.C. who found that sofar as mutation proceedings after the death of Baba Vrindavan Das were concerned, they were never concluded because of start of consolidation operations and as to the question whether the property belonged to the Deity or Baba Dineshwardas and his transferees, the D.D.C. held that it belonged to the Deity, and not Baba Dineshwardas. He accordingly upheld the findings recorded by the C.O. and S.O.C. This Court while deciding the said writ petition also took note of that fact that in this behalf the D.D.C. noticed that Baba Vrindavan Das himself moved an application in the year 1946 to the effect that the name of Deity be entered and his name be entered only as Sarvarakar and his application was allowed by the Revenue Officer. In view of the order passed by the Revenue Officer Baba Vrindavan Das was bound by the admission made by him and and those claiming through Baba Vrindavan Das were also bound by it. It is relevant to state at this stage that Baba Dineshwardas claimed himself to be the disciple of Baba Vrindavan Das, therefore, he was also bound by the aforesaid. The High Court noticed that the D.D.C. confirmed the findings recorded by the C.O. and the S.O.C. This High Court categorically opined that the order passed by the D.D.C. is based on appraisal of evidence and no perversity in the same could be pointed out, even otherwise, the order passed by the D.D.C. was just and equitable, therefore, no interference in the same is called for. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Baba Satya Narain Das was the disciple of Baba Dineshwar Das and there is no dispute in this regard. The petitioner claims to be the disciple of Baba Satya Narain Das. Baba Vrindavan Das died on 18.10.1964 and after Baba Dineshwar Das, Baba Satya Narain Das looked after the Deity and the temple as also its properties.
In spite of the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation Courts as affirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated 6.9.1978 and the fact that the proceedings under section 9 relating to title to the property in question attained finality, the property could not be recorded in the name of Deity on account of some dispute having arisen and the prevailing situation on the spot from 1978-1986.
It is said that some application was filed in the same consolidation operations under section 12 of the Act 1953 for mutation of the property in the name of Baba Satya Narain Das as its Sarvarakar based on some resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 8.6.1986, which is not available. However, the said claim was rejected by the C.O. on 23.8.1986 on the ground that he had no power to declare Baba Satya Narain Das as Sarvarakar. Being aggrieved Baba Satya Narain Das filed an appeal before the S.O.C. which was allowed on 13.7.1989 and the property was ordered to be recorded in the name of Ram Janki Mandir through its Sarvarakar Baba Satya Narain Das. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that there was an interpolation of the words 'Ram Janki Mandir' in the said order and in fact the order was for recording the property in the name of Baba Satya Narain Das in his individual capacity. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the order of the S.O.C. which is on record shows that it was to be recorded in the name of Ram Janki Mandir through its Sarvarakar Baba Satya Narain Das.
As had happened when Baba Dineshwardas was looking after the affairs and had transferred some of the lands belonging to the deity to private parsons, so did Baba Satya Narain Das, but by way of a gift-deed dated 14.12.2006, stating categorically that he was doing so as Sarvarakar of the Temple. Apart from it, a supplementary gift-deed dated 6.10.2008 was executed, whereby, the mention of Baba Satya Narain Das as Sarvarakar in the gift-deed dated 12.6.2006 is said to have been rectified, meaning thereby, he was said to have gifted the property in question in his individual capacity being its owner as asserted by Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents who were the transferees in this transaction. These transferees applied for mutation before the Revenue Court which was rejected on 21.7.2006 on the ground that the property was of the Deity. It is then that Baba Satya Narain Das filed a revision under section 48 of the Act 1953 challenging the order of the S.O.C. dated 13.7.1989. Needless to say that the revisioin was filed in the year 2006 with a delay of almost 17 years, but this revision was allowed by the D.D.C. vide order dated 18.9.2008. Thereafter a review petition was filed which was dismissed on 25.11.2010 as not maintainable.
Baba Satya Narain Das died on 12.10.2011. It is after the death of Baba Satya Narain Das, as stated by the petitioners, as there was nobody to manage the temple and disputes were arising with persons having vested personal interest in usurping the property of the Deity, the villagers called him and appointed him Mahanth, whereupon he is managing the temple since then and it is only then that he came to know about the aforesaid proceedings and filed this writ petition in the year 2013 challenging the order of the D.D.C. dated 18.9.2008 and 25.11.2010, seeking other reliefs for the protection of the property of the Deity being its disciple.
A preliminary objection was raised by Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the transferees, opposite party nos. 9 and 10, that this writ petition at the behest of the Temple or the petitioner no.2 Swami Premdas, alleged Chela of Baba Satya Narain Das was not maintainable, firstly, as he was not the Sarvarakar or Mahanth of the Temple, secondly, as he claimed to be Chela of Baba Satya Narain Das, therefore, he could not take a stand contrary to that of Baba Satya Narain Das. He also sought to discredit the identity of the petitioner himself and his credibility.
In the rejoinder affidavit Swami Premdas, petitioner no.2 has specifically stated that prior to becoming a disciple he was known as Jwala Prasad S/o Sri Ram Narain. He renounced the worldly activities in the year 1995 and became Sanyasi. His Guru was Swami Satya Narain Das, who gave him the name Premdas, Chela Satya Narain Das. Annexures R.A.1 and R.A.2 are proofs of the aforesaid facts. Annexure R.A.3 are the irrigation receipts in respect of the property in question which are said to have been deposited by him. Annexure R.A.5 and R.A.6 are also in support of the aforesaid contentions. He has also alleged that after he stopped the persons with vested interest from usurping the interest of the Deity and took up the matter, he was implicated in several criminal cases.
As regards his locus standi to maintain the petition, Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 1044, Vishwanath v. Estate, Radha Vallabh Ji, wherein, a similar objection had been repelled on the ground that when the Shebait acts adversely to the interest of the idol, who is a minor in the eyes of law, and fails to take action to safeguard its interests, such a right of maintaining the cause of a worshiper of the idol cannot be justifiably denied. An idol being in the position of a minor when the person representing it leaves it in a lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol, can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. The Supreme Court observed it is a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to a difficult situation. The Supreme Court further observed that should it be held that a Shebait, who transferred the property, can only bring a suit for recovery, in most of the cases it will be an indirect approval of the dereliction of the Shebait's duty, for more often than not, he will not admit his default and take steps to recover the property, apart from other technical pleas that may be open to the transferee in a suit. The Supreme Court further observed that should it be held that a worshiper can file only a suit for removal of a Shebait and for the appointment of another in order to enable him to take steps to recover the property, such a procedure will be rather a prolonged and a complicated one and the interest of the idol may irreparably suffer, that is why the decisions have permitted a worshiper in such circumstances to represent the idol and to recover the property for the idol. The Supreme Court referred to various decisions in support of its opinion.
The factual situation prevailing in this case is also similar as in spite of the earlier proceedings under section 9 categorically holding that the Consolidation Courts could not appoint a Sarvarakar and that the property in dispute belonged to the Deity and not to the alleged Sarvarakar and the said decisions having attained finality up to the High Court, surprisingly, without even disclosing these facts and adjudications in the subsequent proceedings under section 12, Baba Satya Narain Das who being the Chela of Baba Dineshwardas was bound by the earlier adjudications, he got himself declared as a Sarvarakar from the Consolidation Courts and also that the property in dispute belonged to him in his individual capacity, therefore, in these circumstances, Swami Prem Das, petitioner no.2 has come forward to challenge the orders passed by the D.D.C., therefore, based on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath (supra), this Court is of the view that the writ petition at the behest of Swami Premdas is maintainable, however, with the caveat that this would not mean that he is the Mahant or Sarvarakar of the Temple and if there is any dispute in this regard or any other person such as the intervener represented through Miss Savita Jain, namely Ramswaroop Das, claims to be the Mahant or Sarvarakar, he can seek an adjudication before the appropriate forum, but, as far as the title to the property in question is concerned, it is necessary to decide as to whether the order of the D.D.C. aforesaid is sustainable in law or not. Neither the worshiper of the idol nor this Court can be mute spectators to the usurpation of such property, if it is so. The preliminary objection raised by Sri M.A. Khan is accordingly rejected. The dispute regarding Sarvarakarship, if any, can be decided separately in proceedings before the appropriate forum.
As regards merits of the controversy, the Court finds that the question as to whether the property in question bearing old Khata Nos.270 and 1000 (new Khata No. 931-Gata No.1823) belonged to the Deity or Baba Satya Narain Das or not, was conclusively decided in the earlier consolidation proceedings under section 9 of the Act 1953. as already noticed hereinabove. The said proceedings attained finality up to the High Court which affirmed the said orders vide its judgment dated 6.9.1978 which was never put to challenge any further, therefore, this issue was not open for consideration in the subsequent proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953, whether in the same consolidation operations or subsequent consolidation operations, as this was clearly barred, especially as, Baba Satya Narain Das admittedly was the disciple of Baba Dineshwardas who was a party in the earlier proceedings wherein findings were recorded against his claim to ownership of the property on individual basis.
The contention of Sri M.A. Khan that in view of the liberty granted by the High Court in its judgment aforesaid a suit under section 92 C.P.C. was filed for declaring a Public Trust for managing the affairs of the idol or Temple which was dismissed and this was evidence of the fact that the property did not belong to the idol or the Temple but it belonged to Baba Dineshwardas and thereafter it devolved upon his disciple Baba Satya Narain Das, this contention is absolutely misconceived. The question as to whether the property belonged to idol or to any individual is very different from the question of Sarvarakarship or existence or non-existence of a Public Trust. Moreover, the Court finds that neither in the consolidation proceedings initiated under section 12 and the appellate and revisional proceedings therefrom nor in the suit proceedings under section 92 C.P.C. the factum of the earlier proceedings under section 9 of the Act 1953 were taken into consideration, therefore, it appears that the orders passed in the earlier proceedings as also the judgment of the High Court referred hereinabove were either never brought to the notice of the said authorities and the Civil Court or in any case the same were not taken into consideration, but in either eventuality, the non-consideration of the said orders renders these proceedings unsustainable in law and of no help to the opposite parties. This is apart from the fact that the judgment passed in the suit under section 92 has no bearing on the question of the title in respect of the property in question which had already been held by the competent Courts as belonging to the idol and not Baba Vrindavandas or Baba Dineshwardas, the Guru of Baba Satya Narain Das.
Sri M.A.Khan sought to draw the attention of the Court to various documents pertaining to the period prior to the consolidation proceedings under section 9 to contend that the property was never recorded in the name of Baba Vrindavandas or Dineshwardas as Sarvarakar, but in their individual name, however, this plea is not open for consideration by this Court nor was it open for consideration by the Courts below, as it had already been decided in the earlier consolidation proceedings, as already referred hereinabove. Moreover, the High Court while passing the judgment dated 6.9.1978 had categorically taken note of the findings of the Court below that Baba Vrindavandas had dedicated the property to the idol and it did not belong to Baba Vrindavandas or Baba Dineshwardas, therefore, now it is not open for the opposite parties, that too, the transferees to raise this plea.
The contention of Sri M.A. Khan that Swami Premdas, petitioner no.2 claiming himself to be the Chela of Baba Satya Narain Das could not take a stand different to what had been taken by Baba Satya Narain Das himself, is also absolutely misconceived. A worshiper of the idol can certainly take such a stand for protecting the rights of the idol who is a minor viz.-a-viz. any person including the alleged Sarvarakar who may have misappropriated the property or intended to do so.
It is pertinent to mention that Baba Satya Narain Das, though he initially executed the gift-deed dated 12.6.2006 in favour of opposite party nos.9 and 10 as Sarvarakar as is evident from the Deed on record, subsequently got a supplementary gift-deed registered mentioning that the reference to him as Sarvarakar in the earlier Deed was incorrect and that the deed had been executed in his individual capacity being the owner of the property. This makes the entire scenario quite murky and mala fide. Firstly, the property of an idol could not be gifted in the manner in which it had been done by Baba Satya Narain Das. Any transfer in this regard had to take place for legal necessity and there would be no question of a gift by the alleged Sarvarakar, assuming he was so, of the property of the idol to private persons. Be that as it may, the execution of the supplementary gift-deed shows that the gift, according to Baba Satya Narain Das, had been made in his individual capacity, and not as Sarvarakar, based on this, it can be reasonably said that any such transaction in respect of the property of the Diety by Baba Satya Narain Das was a nullity in the eyes of law. Had the challenge to the gift-deed been made on any ground unrelated to the validity of the orders passed by the consolidation officers, then, this Court may not have entered into this issue, but once, in view of the reasons given hereinabove, it is held that the order passed by the D.D.C. contrary to the earlier orders which were binding upon him, is not sustainable in law, as is the case herein, then, all transactions in respect of the property of the idol treating it to be the property of Baba Satya Narain Das are rendered a nullity in the eyes of law. The technical considerations and pleas raised by the opposite parties in this regard are outweighed by the supervening larger interest to protect the property of the idol and nullify fraudulent transactions as also to avoid multiplicity of litigation in this regard.
The Court also takes note of the fact that the supplementary gift-deed was executed after the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the D.D.C. under section 48 of the Act 1953 holding that the property belonged to Baba Satya Narain Das, therefore, this re-affirms the view of this Court that the entire transaction based thereon is not only a nullity, but was also mala fide in the eyes of law. The filing of a revision against the order of the S.O.C. dated 13.7.1989 after 19 years, it being entertained and allowed in the teeth of the High Court judgment dated 6.9.1978 arising out of proceedings under section 9 itself speaks volumes in this regard.
It is also worthwhile to mention that in the subsequent proceedings under section 12, the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 23.8.1986 rightly declined the claim of Baba Satya Narain Das for being appointed as Sarvarakar on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to do so. This is precisely what had been held in section 9 proceedings. This order was put to challenge in appeal before the S.O.C. who accepted the claim of Baba Satya Narain Das to be recorded in place of Baba Vrindawandas as Sarvarakar contrary to the findings in the earlier proceedings under section 9 as also the law on the subject under which such a declaration could only be given by a Civil Court. Be that as it may, the S.O.C. while deciding the appeal vide his judgment dated 13.7.1989 categorically ordered that the property be recorded in the name of Sri Ram Janki Mandir, Sarvarakar Chela Baba Satya Narain Das. The contention of Sri M.A. Khan that the words "ke sthan par Sri Ram Janki Mandir Sarvarakar" have been interpolated by hand, otherwise the direction of the S.O.C. was for recording the property in the name of Baba Satya Narain Das, Chela of Baba Vrindavandas as it belonged to him, is not acceptable, nor does it have any legal significance for the simple reason that the property having already been held as belonging to the Deity under section 9 of the Act 1953 and even in the order of the S.O.C. dated 13.7.1989 it was treated accordingly, it could not belong to Baba Satys Narain Das nor could it have been held otherwise in subsequent proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953 and in appeal or revision arising therefrom.
It is also worthwhile to mention that in the subsequent proceedings under section 12 and also appeals and revisions arising therefrom neither the temple nor any other interested person was made a party, with the result Baba Satya Narain Das who was obviously acting mala fide, trying to usurp the property, which in fact belonged to the idol, had a freeplay and the consolidation courts were kept completely in the dark.
The fact that the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officers as also of the High Court were not implemented on account of the ensuing dispute and attachment of the property as already referred earlier, facilitated the fraud committed in this regard.
Apart from the findings recorded hereinabove it is not out of place to mention that the property of the Deity was in fact in two villages and in the other village it is already recorded in the name of the Deity based on the orders passed by the Consolidation Court under the Act 1953.
As far as Ramswaroop Das and Jaleshwar Das who are said to have initiated proceedings for mutation of the property in question in their name claiming themselves to be Chela of Baba Satya Narain Das, are concerned, once it has been held that the property belonged to the Deity, then it has to continue as the property of the Deity, the question as to who is the Sarvarakar, i.e. who is the one who is to manage the affairs of the temple, is another issue, which does not directly fall for consideration in these proceedings and can be sorted out, as stated earlier, in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Courts separately.
In view of the above, the order of D.D.C. dated 18.9.2008 is not sustainable in law and is therefore quashed. The Revenue and Consolidation Authorities, as the case may be, are ordered to record the property in question in the name of the idol in terms of the orders of the Consolidation Authorities in proceedings under section 9 as affirmed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 6.9.1978 and maintain the records accordingly. All transactions treating the property in question as that of Baba Satya Narain Das, whether in individual capacity or as alleged Sarvarakar based on the orders in Appeal or Revision arising out of proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953, stand nullified, as any benefit derived from a fraudulent transaction referred above, cannot be sustained. The status quo ante with regard to the land in question has to be restored in this regard. The question of Sarvarakarship or Mahant is left open for adjudication by a competent Court.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 20.12.2017 A.Nigam (Rajan Roy, J.)