Uttar Pradesh (UP) recently reported a bizarre case of grabbing land. As per the reports, the deity of a temple was declared dead in a temple in Lucknow.
Common Man Becomes Father of Lord Krishna-Ram
As per the reports, the temple in Lucknow is said to be around one hundred years old and is spread to seven thousand square meters. It is run by a trust and is registered in the name of Lord Krishna-Ram. The location of the land and temple is Kushmaura Haluvapur village in the Mohanlalganj area of Uttar Pradesh.
At some point in time (yet to be verified), a common man named Gaya Prasad was registered in the record documents of that land as the father of Lord-Krishna Ram. And when the consolidation of the land records and other important legal documents took place back in the year 1987, Lord Krishna-Ram was “declared to be dead”. Following this, the ownership of the land was transferred to Gaya Prasad. This means that the land on which the temple was built and since Lord Krishna-Ram were “dead”, the property belonged to Gaya Prasad.
Then in the year 1991, Gaya Prasad was also declared dead and the property was transferred to his brothers Ramnath and Haridwar.
Original Trustee Files Complaint After 25 Years
However, after twenty-five years of the whole situation in the year 2016, the matter came in light when the original trustee of the land namely Sushil Kumar filed a complaint with the Naib-Tehsildar.
The case then went from the Naib-Tehsildar’s office to the district magistrate and then to the Deputy Chief Minister’s office. But none of the approaches resulted in anything. However, as per the latest reports, the investigations show that there have been many mutations within the land records and legal documents over the years. And most of them are fraudulent in nature.
The alleged forgery was done to take over the temple land which is over 7000 meters. As per the investigations conducted by the SDM Sadar Prafulla Kumar Tripathi both the temple and the land were established under the name of Lord-Krishna Ram in the initial days. He said that the temple’s land was described as barren by the local gram sabha. However, the case was later challenged at the SDM court and is currently under trial.