Ayodhya DM Reclaimed Plot, Mandir Trust Later Paid a Seer Rs 23 Crore For it
The District Magisterate is one of 14 members of Ram Janmabhoomi Trust.
advertisement
(Such reports are possible due to our editorial independence. Become a member and help us do more such stories)
Four months after the Ayodhya district magistrate declared a 0.645-hectare plot “nazul” land, the property “owner” sold it to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra (SRJTK) for Rs 23.61 crore in April 2024, court and registry documents exclusively accessed by The Quint show. The SRJTK is the trust that has built and runs Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The problem here is that the ownership of “nazul” land rests with the government and it can’t be sold or bought without explicit permission of the government. Typically, it can only be leased out.
It has remained a mystery how Mahant Murli Das, a seer at Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya, sold the government land to the Trust when the district magistrate, a member of the Trust, opposed Murli Das’ ownership rights. At the time, the DM was Nitish Kumar.
In the sale deed, Murli Das gave an undertaking that a legal dispute related to the land was pending in a court. However, the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Board’s order shows that the case was settled months before the sale deed, signed by Champat Rai on behalf of the Trust as its general secretary. The board said that it was indeed government land.
The land is located at Kot Ramchandra, Haveli Awadh, in Ayodhya.
Ayodhya DM Shashank Tripathi and Rai did not reply to this correspondent’s questionnaire nor did they answer multiple calls. Nitish Kumar, who was DM between October 2021 and July 2024, said that he “was not aware of this case” and referred this correspondent to additional district magistrate (finance and revenue). “Registries are taken care of by ADM (F/R),” he said. Kumar is now managing director of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited.
Murli Das said he did not want to reveal anything related to the land deal. “I will wait until SIT completes its investigation,” he said, claiming that talking to the media won’t help him get the land back. One of his disciples alleged that the land was sold under duress from the Trust. The revenue board order also referred to alleged coercion.
Role of DM and Revenue Board order
More than a month after the joint magistrate’s court ordered removal of Murli Das’ name from the registry, he challenged it in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Board on July 10, 2023. In this case, the UP government was “represented through Ayodhya Collector”.
The Trust has 14 members, including Ayodhya DM (ex-officio) and one representative each from state and central governments. Facing allegations, Champat Rai and Anil Mishra have resigned from the Trust, which is yet to take a decision on this.
The collector, represented by standing counsel Pratap Singh, said that there was no provision under which Murli Das’ name could have been registered as a heir apparent to his guru. “It’s not clear how earlier names (before Murli Das) were added to the registry records. Hence, their names were getting added in error,” read the final order, quoting from the report of a tehsildar. The order was passed by board member Ram Singhasan Prem.
Murli Das claimed that his name had been registered in the revenue records since 1984, according to his petition. He claims that before him, the land was in the name of Mahant Ramsevak Das Chela Laxman Das and Mahant Ramnivas Das Chela Shatrugan Das. Murli Das argued that the land was given to his predecessors by the Nawab of Awadh in 1737.
Hanumgarhi temple is divided into four administrative divisions (pattis) – Ujjani, Basantiya, Sagria and Haridwari. Each patti is headed by a mahant. Murli Das heads the Haridwari patti.
“The joint magistrate passed an order on June 2, 2023, by mentioning all the facts. There is no need for any intervention. The joint magistrate has corrected registry records,” Prem wrote in his order.
Prem dismissed the petition at a “preliminary stage” and upheld the joint magistrate’s order.
Order by Board member Ram Singhasan Prem
In between, Murli Das also approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, seeking a stay on dispossession of the land and a joint magistrate’s order. He also sought early disposal of the case pending with the Revenue Board.
Before the joint magistrate, Murli Das claimed that the land was eyed by the Trust and district administration. “The land was demanded by the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust. But the objector (Murli Das) refused it in favour of the patti. That’s why under a conspiracy, this land was declared nazul… The whole proceedings are wrong and unconstitutional,” argued Das.
Rajesh Das Pehlwan, another seer at Haridwari patti, also alleged that the Trust forced them to sell the land. “Several sadhus and mahants protested against the Trust for compelling us to sell the land. Even two months before the sale deed, we had led a protest against the forced takeover,” he told this correspondent. Murli Das refused to talk about it. “This won’t help me get the land back,” he said.
Under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the joint magistrate observed that the land be registered as nazul and Murli Das’ name be removed from the registry.
He claimed that a legal dispute related to the land was pending in the court. In fact, the revenue board settled the dispute four months ago. A high court lawyer privy to the case said Das did not challenge the board’s order.
Grounds for the Sale
On March 18, 2024, the panchayat of Haridwari patti decided to sell the land for several reasons: that it could not find any buyer who was ready to pay more than Rs 23.61 crore; that the land was not in use; that the “legal dispute” dissuaded prospective buyers, according to the sale deed. The land also housed a temple measuring 2,500 square feet.
Pehlwan claimed that the land was undersold because of pressure from the Trust.
(Shivnarayan Rajpurohit is an investigative journalist who follows the paper trail on corporate and governance accountability. He was previously with Newslaundry and The Indian Express.)