TO

THE COMMISSIONER,
IN THE CAPACITY OF
PRESIDENT,
JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI (UP).

REF: WRIT (CIVIL) NO. 10351 OF 2012 &

Complainant Dated 02-07-2011 of the
Complainant Rani Tara Devi
(Complainant to JDA).

SUB: REPRESENTATION REGARDING

ATTEMP OF MISGUIDING JHANSI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
ALLHABAD BY UMASHANKER
BOHRE TO GET HIS UNAUTHORISED
CONSTRUCTION AND LEGAL
SANCTION BY ABUSE OF JUDICIAL
SYSTEM AND MISGUIDING THE
AUTHROITY AS WELL AS THE
HON’BLE COURT.

Respected Sir/Madam,

Please take the reference of the complaint dated 02-

07-2011 filed by this complainant and the letters

issued by your office to the Kotwali In-charge, Azad Ganj,

Seepri Bazar, Jhansi (UP) to stop the illegal construction

by Sh. Umashanker Bohre on the subjudice temple

properties. A copy of the letter enclosed herewith as

ready reference.

Page 1 of 11
 Please note kindly that the Appeal No. 48/2011 is

pending before the court of Hon’ble District Judge Jhansi

and next date of hearing is 10-05-2012.

The Writ Petition C. No. 10351 is an attempt to

bypass the judicial process and create a fake sense of

ownership before the authority and before the Hon’ble

Court.

The real set of facts in regards to the temple

properties are as follows:-

1) That One Daulatram constructed two temples

at Delhi and Jhansi and the said temples were

dedicated the idols of Lord Rama, Laxmanji

and Sitaji. The temple of Jhansi was dedicated

to “Shri Ramchadraji Maharaj Virajman” and

the temple was through a private temple but

was open to common public for worship.

Daulat Ram had no son and was having only

one daughter Smt. Gyarso Devi. Sh.

Daulatram married his daughter to one Sh.

Shanker Lal, who used to live with him and

assist him with his business at Jhansi and

Delhi. Shanker Lal has two sons Ram Kishun

and Sunder Singh; Sh. Ram Kishun was

Page 2 of 11
 having one son Sh. Heera Singh who was the

husband of instant Plaintiff.

2) That the family tree of present Plaintiff is as

below:-

LATE SH. DAULAT RAM

SMT. GYARSO BAI (DAUGHTER)

W/O SH. (LATE) SHANKER LAL
LATE RAM KISHUN LATE SUNDER SINGH

LATE KUNWAR HEERA SINGH KASHMIRA LAL KAMLA DEVI

SMT. RANI TARA DEVI W/O (SON) (DAUGHTER)
LATE KUNWAR HEERA
SINGH

3) That Ram Kishun expired in the year 1935 and

present Plaintiff’s husband Late Sh. Heera

Singh took charge of the affairs of temple, the

petitioner’s husband Late Sh. Heera Singh

used to go to visit Jhansi off and on to look

after the temple and the properties.

4) That Narain Dass the pujari died on 01-04-

1964, before his death Naraindas had invited

his relatives namely one Umashanker and

Respondent NO. 1, whom Narain Das pujari

allegedly gifted several of the properties

unlawfully and illegally as he was not the

virtual owner of the properties bearing Nos.

259/1, 259/2, 259/3, 259/4, 259/5, 259/6,

259/7, 259/8 and 260 to 262 vide Gift Deed

Page 3 of 11
 Dated 14-06-1955, in actual these properties

were temple properties. The said document

had been challenged in various proceedings by

the plaintiff herein and is a disputed piece of

document.

5) That after death of the Naraindas pujari,

Umashanker started claiming that Naraindas

pujari had adopted him and also he had

entrusted him all the powers of pujari which

were earlier entrusted to him. This alleged

adoption was never intimated to the

petitioner’s husband.

6) That Late Sh. Heera Singh husband of the

present Plaintiff, visited Jhansi and came to

know that Uma Shanker and his mother after

the death of Sh. Naraindass the pujari had

started mismanaging the temple, miss-

appropriating the temple’s property and giving

possession of the temple.

7) That Respondent NO. 1 and Sh. Umashanker

Bohre started claiming that the temple

property is their own property, and collected

rents from the tenants lodged in the houses of

temple compound and misappropriated the

income as their own income.

Page 4 of 11
8) That after collecting the necessary information

and evidence the Plaintiff’s husband filed a

suit in the court of Additional Civil Judge,

Jhansi, being a suit for declaration bearing no.

31/1965 that the house/properties detailed in

the scheduled A of the plaint was owned by

Shri Ramchandra Ji Maharaj temple, Hata

Shankerlal.

9) That the suit filed by the Plaintiff’s husband

Heera Singh was accepted and he started

pursuing the case but meanwhile the husband

of the petitioner and his staff started receiving

threats from Umashanker and Respondent

No. 1 his well wishers and he started he

pursuing the case from Delhi and appointing a

pairokar namely Smt. Premwati W/o Sh. Shiv

Charan Lal.

10) That on 8-12-1965 an order was passed

violating all the norms of judicial propriety and

“Uma Shanker” opposite party of the Plaintiff’s

husband was appointed the “receiver” for the

property in question amongst other belongs to

“Shri Ram Chandra Ji Mahraj,” Hata Shanker

Lal, Azad Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, UP, even

the court was pleased to impose terms and

Page 5 of 11
 conditions of receivership that the receiver

shall be eligible only to collect rent and cannot

dispose of any of such properties which

belongs to temple.

11) That since then series of litigation started by

suit No. 31/1965 went upto the appeal before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the

question of the Ownership of the Properties

belonging to the temple remained undecided as

the Hon’ble Apex Courts were pleased to

observed in their respective judgments that the

issue of dedication of the properties involved

in suit no. 31/1965 had remained undecided

and that the Plaintiff’s husband was not able

to prove the said dedication of the properties to

the temple despite enough documents showing

the properties being entered in the name of

temple on record.

12) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide

its order dated 13-12-1982 in Civil Appeal No.

670/1980, Shri Uma Shanker was

discontinued from receivership by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court with specific directions that

Sh. Umashanker cannot file any further

litigation in regard to the said properties

Page 6 of 11
 without obtaining the prior permission from

Distt. Magistrate Jhansi (UP).

13) That Shri Jagdish Prasad Likhdhari, Advocate

was appointed receiver in place of Uma

Shanker by Distt. Judge, Jhansi (UP) as per

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14) That Shri Heera Singh died during pendency

of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and the Plaintiff herein replaced him

alongwith his other legal representatives and

was made party in Civil Appeal No.670 of

1980 which being titled as Heera Singh &

others Versus Umashanker & others and also

in Civil Appeal NO.1356 of 1982 which being

titled as Ram Prakash Versus Umashanker &

others.

15) That however, the construction of the temple

by the ancestors of the Plaintiff’s husband and

appointment of Sh. Naraindas as ‘pujari’ /

caretaker of the said temple, remained

undisputed.

16) That Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed,

Distt. Judge, Distt. Magistrate Jhansi to make

an enquiry in the irregularities conducted by

Page 7 of 11
 the Receivers namely Umashanker, Jagdish

Prasad Likhdhari and issued specific

directions that a new receiver to the properties,

who is not related with either of the parties.

17) That Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order was not

complied in letter and spirit by the Hon’ble

Distt. Judge, Jhansi and Sh. Ramsewak Vyas

Advocate of Sh. Umashanker and Respondent

No. 1 Ram Dulari was appointed as Receiver of

the said properties.

18) That Sh. Ramsewak Vyas in connivance with

Respondent NO. 1 Ram Dulari started abusing

the temple properties and virtually handed

over all the rights of receiver to the Respondent

No. 1 Ram Dulari and Umashanker Bohre,

who started dismantling, alienating the temple

properties and without obtaining permission

from Distt. Magistrate started filing vague &

vexatious litigations against the tenant who

used to pay rent to the Plaintiff. They also

criminally assaulted and threatened the

tenants of the Plaintiff herein to get the

premises vacated from them.

19) That the present Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit

bearing No.386 of 1999 being titled as Rani

Page 8 of 11
 Tara Devi Vs. Umashanker Bohre & Others,

which was dismissed on date 30-04-2011 by

Sr. Civil Judge, Jhansi (UP) and appeal No.

48/2011 is pending for disposal before Hon’ble

Distt. Judge, Jhansi.

It is most humbly submitted that an objection dated

19-04-2012 had been given by the applicant herein in

regard to the said application of Sh. Umashanker Bohre

and copy of the same is enclosed herewith as Exhibit – B.

That the applicant had given a false affidavit before

Jhansi Nagar Nigam in order to obtain NO OBJECTION

CERTIFICATE which was required for getting the map

sanctioned from your Authority. The affidavit is false

because it was to be declared in the affidavit that the

applicant is the owner of the said property.

That as per the checklist issued by your authority to

obtain the sanctioning of map as per column NO. 8, the

certificate/document of ownership of property is to be

submitted with the application which had not been

submitted at all.

That Umashanker Bore is living in property bearing

No. 280 and the area of which is approx. 800Sq. ft. and

the sanction of the map demanded by the applicant is

12000 Sq. ft. which itself shows the attempts to misguide

Page 9 of 11
the authority and the Hon’ble Court where submission of

Sh. Umashanker Bohre before the Hon’ble Court is that

he want to partly construct H No. 280 prior to this he

had attempted unauthorized construction on property

bearing Nos. 721 to 724 at Azad Ganj, Seepri Bazar,

Jhansi (UP).

After the above captioned representation following

are the main submissions of the applicant:-

a) The properties bearing No. 280 is part of the

temple property of Sh. Chander ji Virajman.

b) Umashanker Bohre was tenant of applicant

herein (as he had shown in several judicial

cases)

c) Umashanker Bohre was once appointed as

receiver of the temple and all the properties

adjacent to it and he was never the owner of

property.

d) Civil Appeal No. 48/2011 is pending and

property No. 280 is also part of suit property

and hence is a subjudice property.

e) Umashanker Bohre is trying to sell temple

properties and which is subject matter of

enquiry.

Page 10 of 11
 f) Umashanker Bohre is misguiding the

authority and also to the Hon’ble High

Court.

PRAYER

It is most humbly prayed that:-

I. Submission/representations of the

applicant may be taken on record.

II. Claim of sanction of map by Sh.

Umashanker Bohre may be

rejected.

III. Permanent status quo may be

ordered on the properties adjacent

to temple and which are subject

matter of appeal no. 48/2011 (List

enclosed as appendix C).

Thanking you.

APPLICANT
RANI TARA DEVI
W/O LATE SH. KUNWAR HEERA SINGH R/O
H.NO. 3133, GALI MANDIR WALI, PAHARI DHEERAJ,
DELHI-110006
Place : Delhi.

Dated :

Page 11 of 11