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 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 and such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or the Board should not have been made. The functioning in the Government is by different Officers and the working of the Executive has inbuilt checks and balances. Therefore, 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. [Para 19] [149-E-G]
3. 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 Central Bureau of Investigation on satisfaction of the conditions as specified therein only in exceptional circumstances as laid down in State of West Bengal case. Such power cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner without examining the complexities, nature of offence and some time the tardy progress in the investigations involving high officials of the State investigating agency itself. [Para 20] [150-A-C]
State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others (2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979
– followed.
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another (2002) 5 SCC 521; Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others (2016) 7 SCC 597 : [2016] 3 SCR 492; K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others (2013) 12
SCC 480 : [ 2013] 9 SCR 199; Bimal Gurung v. Union of India (2018) 15 SCC 480 : [2018] 4 SCR 843 ; T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others (2011) 12 SCC 328 : [2011] 9 SCR 647 – referred to..
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.