HC Stays Baba Ramdev's Karauli Dream Project

HC Stays Baba Ramdev's Karauli Dream Project

Jaipur, 24 July 2018: The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the dream project of Baba Ramdev at Karauli district in Rajasthan.


The Bharat Swabhiman Trust of Baba Ram Dev and the Govind Devji Trust had entered into an agreement on August 11, 2016 for 401 bigha of land of the Govind Devji Trust on lease to the trust of Baba Ramdev for the setting up of a Yogpeeth, Gurukul, Ayuveda Hosptial, Ayurveda pharma unit and a goshala at a cost of Rs 500 crore. The lease was for 20 years.


The court has given this order on a petition by Ram Kumar Singh who challenged the agreement between Govind Devji Mandir Trust and Bharat Swabhiman Trust of Baba Ramdev.


The single bench of Justice SP Sharma in his interim order said no possession, construction and lease agreement will be executed in the controversial land and directed the Devasthan commissioner to ensure the compliance of the order. The court also asked the Devesthan department to inform it of the steps taken to protect the properties of the Govind Devi Temple by next hearing on August 17. The temple trust has 729 bigha of agriculture land at Karauli.


Chief minister Vasundhara Raje had laid the foundation stone for the pet project on April 22 this year. However, many legal hurdles cropped up on the execution of the project as the land in question is agriculture land and without changing the land use, the project could not be launched. Besides the land is divided into 50 different khasra numbers under Sri Govind Dev Ji Mandir’s name according to revenue records, and as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a temple land belongs to the idol installed inside the temple, said the petitioner. The law considers the temple idol as a perpetual minor, and the provisions of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 apply to it.


Legally, the mandir trust can neither sell the land nor rent it out for non-agricultural purposes. According to the Act, no one can take over land registered under a minor’s name, it was argued.ET Healthworld