3878 of 2009 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 numberdisciple or successor of the deceased was reported.
The ration card which the petitioner produced was found to have several interpolations which cast serious doubt on its authenticity.
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.
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 Tehsildar in a report dated 26 August 2004 stated that the name of Dharmanand was entered in the revenue records since 2004.
The Collector numbered in his order that among the applications received in response to the numberice was one by a person by the name of Dayasagar stating that the saints of the Chidanandji Sect are the true and lawful heirs.
4 The Collector has basically entered two findings in his impugned order.
The Tehsildar opined that there being numberlegal heir, the property stands vested in the state government by escheat.
3 Notices were published in the newspapers by the Collectorate, calling for objections.
Velji Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2017.09.22 165921 IST Reason Devshi Patel v Collector, Haridwar1.
The Collector also numbered that the proceedings register which was produced by the petitioner companytained material omissions and had blank pages.
The Collector numbered that the petitioner, during the companyrse of his cross examination had numberknowledge of when Dharmanand was murdered.
Firstly, the Collector numbered 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.
The decision on the first has been dealt with in the judgment delivered today in Signature Not Verified Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr.
1 Civil Appeal No.
The petitioner was one of the two accused put up for trial in Sessions Trial No.
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.
He had numberinformation on the establishment of the Ashram number was he aware of the persons who resided with Dharmanand.
This was in companytrast to the case of the petitioner which was that he had succeeded Dharmanand.
The evidence of DW2 Krishnanand was that after the death of Amritanand it was the petitioner who became the Mahant.
