1

NON- REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3881 OF 2009

MAHANT RAMANAND                                    ....APPELLANT     

Versus  

STATE OF UTTRANCHAL AND ORS.                    .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1 In the writ  proceedings before the High Court  of  Uttarakhand,  an order

dated 1 September 2005 of the Collector, Haridwar was challenged. The High

Court  by  its  judgment  dated  15  May 2007  dealt  with  two  writ  petitions.  The

decision  on  the  first  has  been dealt  with  in  the  judgment  delivered  today in

Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr. Velji

Devshi Patel v Collector, Haridwar1.   1  (Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2009)

2

2 In the present case, proceedings were initiated before the Collector on a

report submitted on 4 August 2004 by the Inspector in-charge Kotawali, Haridwar

stating that Mahant Dharmanand, a disciple of Amritanand (resident of Pili Kothi

Bhopatwala,  Pargana Jwalapur, District  Haridwar)  was murdered by unknown

persons  and  no  disciple  or  successor  of  the  deceased  was  reported.  The

Tehsildar in a report dated 26 August 2004 stated that the name of Dharmanand

was entered in the revenue records since 2004. The Tehsildar opined that there

being  no  legal  heir,  the  property  stands  vested  in  the  state  government  by

escheat.  

3 Notices were published in the newspapers by the Collectorate, calling for

objections. The Collector noted in his order that among the applications received

in response to the notice was one by a person by the name of Dayasagar stating

that  the  saints  of  the  Chidanandji  Sect  are  the  true  and  lawful  heirs.  The

petitioner submitted his objection claiming to be a disciple of late Amritanand,

Mahant  Dharmanand  and  stated  that  he  was  the  occupier  of  the  Garibdasi,

Chidanand Ashram, Pili Kothi Bhopatwala, Haridwar. The petitioner claimed that

he was the guru bhai of late Mahant Dharmanand and that during the lifetime of

Amritanand, the names of Dharmanand and the petitioner were included in the

ration cards. According to the petitioner, he was made Gaddinashin following the

customs and practices of the Pilikothi, Garibdasi Sant Samaj and Sant Mandal,

3

Haridwar.  The  Collector  noted  that  Dharmanand  was  murdered  by  unknown

persons and a criminal  case was  registered under  Section 302 of  the Penal

Code.  Following the death of  Dharmanand,  it  was found that  he had not  left

behind a natural heir and there were a number of people disputing the property of

Chidanand Ashram. The Collector noted that in order to obviate a breach of law

and order, the property was taken into government custody.  

4 The Collector has basically entered two findings in his impugned order.

Firstly, the Collector noted that the petitioner staked a claim to succession on the

basis that as the guru bhai of Dharmanand who was a sanyasi, he had stepped

into his shoes under the customs of the sect. On this aspect, the Collector has

held that there is no evidence to indicate that Dharmanand had in fact renounced

the  world  so  as  to  be  called  a  sanyasi  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  The

petitioner, the Collector noted had not established any tradition or practice on the

basis  of  which  he  claimed  to  succeed  to  Dharmanand.  Since  the  status  of

Dharmanand as sanyasi was held not to be proved, the Collector rejected the

case of the petitioner to succeed on the basis of tradition or usage.

5 Alternately,  the  Collector  held  that  even  on  the  hypothesis  that

Dharmanand was a sanyasi, the petitioner failed to establish his own status as

his heir. The ration card which the petitioner produced was found to have several

4

interpolations which cast  serious doubt  on its  authenticity. The Collector  also

noted  that  the  proceedings  register  which  was  produced  by  the  petitioner

contained material omissions and had blank pages.  The Collector noted that the

petitioner, during the course of his cross-examination had no knowledge of when

Dharmanand was murdered. He had no information on the establishment of the

Ashram nor was he aware of the persons who resided with Dharmanand. The

evidence of DW2 Krishnanand was that after the death of Amritanand it was the

petitioner  who  became the  Mahant.  This  was  in  contrast  to  the  case  of  the

petitioner  which  was  that  he  had  succeeded  Dharmanand.  DW3,  Swamy

Gyananand stated that after the murder of Dharmanand in May 2004, the last

rites were performed by his  brother whereas according to the petitioner, they

were performed by other saints. The Collector has arrived at the conclusion that

the case set up by the petitioner is patently unreliable and suffers from material

contradictions.  Holding  that  the  property  has  vested  in  the  state  government

under the doctrine of escheat, the Collector has directed that it be mutated in the

name of the state.  

6 When leave was  granted  in  the  present  Civil  Appeal  together  with  the

companion appeal on 12 May 2009 an order of status quo was issued.

7 Having heard the learned Counsel and upon perusing the record, we are

unable to find that the appellant has established prima facie any claim in respect

5

of the property in dispute which is described as Khasra No. 19-M admeasuring

as 0.410 hectare. The petitioner was one of the two accused put up for trial in

Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2007 on a charge under Section 302 read with Section

120B  of  the  Penal  Code.  By  a  judgment  dated  31  May  2013,  the  Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar acquitted both the accused on the ground

that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the prosecution had not

been able to establish his case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the

submissions  which  have  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the  first  and  second

respondents,  it  has  sought  to  be  urged  that  the  Appellant  had  actively

participated in the conspiracy resulting in the murder of Swamy Dharmanand and

had played a prominent role in the murder. Evidently, such an inference cannot

be  drawn  since  a  copy  of  the  judgment  rendered  by  the  Second  Additional

Sessions  Judge,  Haridwar  acquitting  the  petitioner  has  been  placed  on  the

record. The Collector has found that :

(i)   As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  had  not  been  established  that  Dharmanand  had

renounced the world and had become a Sanyasi; and

(ii) In any event, the claim of the Petitioner to have succeeded Dharmanand, even

assuming that Dharmanand was a Sanyasi, is not established.  

8 We are at  this  stage satisfied that  the Appellant  has not  produced any

material in these proceedings to support the claim. However, we leave it open to

6

the Appellant to pursue such claims which he has before a competent civil forum.

In the event that the Appellant does so, the findings contained in the order of the

Collector or of the High Court will not be conclusive upon the issues raised. To

enable  the  appellant  to  pursue  his  remedies  in  law,  the  interim  order  shall

continue for a period of four weeks.  

9 The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order

as to costs.  

                ……........................................J                          [N V RAMANA]  

                                                    ................................................J                    [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

New Delhi; September 22, 2017