Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, J. K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Sandhya Pant – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Ruwali & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5238 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Leave granted. These appeals are against a final judgment and order dated 19th November 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.131 of 2018 without hearing the Appellant and without deciding the Appellants application being CLMA No.7758 of 2020 for impleadment, pending before the High Court. The Appellant claims to be the Vice President of the Mandir Samiti which was formed in 2012. The High Court observed and held that the claim of respondent nos.5 to 8 cannot be said to be a mere bald assertion or a pleading, not backed by facts. They have produced substantial material to prove their interest. The material produced by them date back to more than 100 years. Whether these documents are valid, appropriate or not, cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are material that have to be tested and proved in an appropriate civil court. Therefore, it is suffice to hold that the claim of respondent nos.5 to 8 are prima facie backed by material and, therefore, cannot be brushed aside. The material produced by the respondents, require to be proved by them in a court of law. Therefore, considering the rival contentions and the material available, we are of the considered view that these are not matters that could be determined in a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are serious rights which have to be agitated before an appropriate forum. The rights of the parties cannot be determined merely through affidavits filed before this Court. The plea of the writ petitioner that a selected family is misusing its powers and conducting the Pooja etc. the hereditary rights, as claimed by respondent nos.5 to 8 based on the various documents produced by them as well as the stand of the State with regard to the status of the land etc., are serious matters of dispute of right and interest. The same can only be determined before an appropriate civil court through adequate evidence, or otherwise. It is for anyone to establish the fact that it is they who have an interest or a right in the temple. It is, therefore not proper for this Court, to record any finding, based on the affidavit filed, not only by the petitioner but even by respondent nos.5 to 8 as well as the State to hold that the land belongs to the State or not, whether respondent Nos.5 to 8 have a shebait right or not, whether the temple funds have been misused or not, etc. These are all issues to be determined only through a full fledged trial. The fact of the magnitude of the number of devotees who are attracted by this temple, cannot be overlooked. It is not a temple that has been created recently. It is undisputed by all, that this is a very ancient temple which attracts lakhs of devotees every year. Unimagined faith is deposed in the deity, Public sentiments are also issues to be considered delicately by the Court. These are not just matters of interpretation of law that is called for. The sensitive rights of the devotees visa-vis the rights of persons to exercise the shebait rights etc. have all to be considered minutely. It is therefore just and appropriate, that this Court refrains from granting any declaration as to who is the actual person who has a right to exercise the shebait rights or not etc. Therefore, we leave open the question for determination before an appropriate civil court. Whichever party claims its rights over the shebait rights or any other right, pertaining to the temple or any other right relatable to the temple, is entitled to approach the civil court for necessary relief. They would have to establish and succeed before the trial court to obtain any decree in their favour.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals are against a final judgment and order dated 19th November 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.131 of 2018 without hearing the Appellant and without deciding the Appellants application being CLMA No.7758 of 2020 for impleadment, pending before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court refrained from granting any declaration as to who is the actual person who has a right to exercise the shebait rights or any other right relatable to the temple. The Court left open the question for determination before an appropriate civil court. Whichever party claims its rights over the shebait rights or any other right, pertaining to the temple or any other right relatable to the temple, is entitled to approach the civil court for necessary relief. They would have to establish and succeed before the trial court to obtain any decree in their favour.
Issues: The High Court declined to record any finding on shebait rights or misappropriation of funds by those in management, based on the affidavits filed by the parties. The High Court directed that any person claiming a right, title or shebait rights could file a suit before May 2021. The independent Management Committee formed pursuant to the High Courts order dated 4th March 2020 was directed to continue, unless an order/interim order application was filed in any civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court refrained from granting any declaration as to who is the actual person who has a right to exercise the shebait rights or any other right relatable to the temple. The Court left open the question for determination before an appropriate civil court. Whichever party claims its rights over the shebait rights or any other right, pertaining to the temple or any other right relatable to the temple, is entitled to approach the civil court for necessary relief. They would have to establish and succeed before the trial court to obtain any decree in their favour.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against a final judgment and order dated 19th November 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.131 of 2018 without hearing the Appellant and without deciding the Appellants application being CLMA No.7758 of 2020 for impleadment, pending before the High Court.
3. According to the Appellant, Chitai Golu Devta Temple in Almora was constructed in 1919 by late Pandit Keshav Dutt Pant and late Bhola Dutt Pant. As per a Report prepared by the Village Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Chitai Khasparja Tehsil Almora, the original rights in the temple vested with late Jaikishan Pant. The Appellant is the daughter-in-law of late Chaturanan Pant, a descendant of the said Jaikishan Pant. The Appellant claims to be the Vice President of the Mandir Samiti which was formed in 2012. A translated copy of the said Report of the Village Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Chitai dated 8th September 1976 is enclosed to the Paperbook.
4. According to the Appellant, the shebait rights of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple are as under:
5. In compliance of Ordinance No.16 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 6th October 1986, extending the UP Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act 1962, Chaturanan Pant, since deceased made an application for registration of the Chitai Golu Devta temple in the statutory form. In the said form it was stated that the Chitai Golu Devta temple not being a public temple, the provisions of the said Act may not apply to the Chitai Golu Devta temple.
6. On or about 29th October 1985, all the three main idols of the temple were registered under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Rules, 1973 in the name of late Chaturanan Pant, father-in-law of the Appellant.
7. The Appellant has stated that, after the death of late Chaturanan Pant, his son Nalin Pant, since deceased, husband of the Appellant took over the management of the temple along with other family members, that is, the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10, who are sons of late Damodar Pant. After the death of her husband Nalin Pant, the Appellant stepped into his shoes.
8. On 5th June 2015, the Appellant and Respondent Nos.7 to 10 opened a Saving Bank Account in the IDBI Bank in the name of Golu Devta Mandir Samiti, Chitai, Almora. It is claimed that an amount of Rs.8.56 lakhs is lying in deposit in the said account.
9. The Respondent No.1, Deepak Ruwali, an Advocate and a resident of Nainital engaged in social work, filed a Writ Petition in public interest, being W.P. (PIL) No.131 of 2018, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to constitute a registered society or trust for management of the temple.
10. According to the Appellant, Ashutosh Pant, Smt. Lajja Pant, Sh. Paritosh Pant and other family members of the Appellant got the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed through the Respondent No.1 for oblique reasons. According to the Appellant, an application made by the Appellant along with the Respondent Nos.7 to 10 for registration of the Golu Devta Mandir Samiti has been kept pending because of the Public Interest Litigation.
11. On 11th September 2018, Ashutosh Pant and other family members filed objections before the Registrar of Societies, Almora and District Magistrate, Almora, hereinafter referred to as the "District Magistrate", stating that objections should be considered before registration of the Mandir Samiti and other persons may be included in the Mandir Samiti.
12. On 18th September 2018, the District Magistrate constituted a Five Member Committee for inquiry with regard to the complaint made by Ashutosh Pant and others. On 1st October, 2018, the Members of the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate called for a meeting to look into the issues raised by Ashutosh Pant in his complaint. According to the Appellant, only Ashutosh Pant, Paritosh Pant, Vasudha Pant and Lajja Pant were called to the mee
The High Court refrained from granting any declaration as to who is the actual person who has a right to exercise the shebait rights or any other right relatable to the temple. The Court left open th....
The distinction between a private and a public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof.
State authorities cannot unilaterally usurp the managerial role of an established religious institution's trustees to implement infrastructure projects. Temple funds, particularly surpluses, must fol....
A temple is classified as private if it lacks features of public worship and management rests with a specific community, as established through historical evidence and refusal of public rights.
The determination of a temple's status as public or private hinges on the right of public access and the evidence of dedication to public worship, not merely on the presence of public worship.
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
The court underscored the principle that appointments of receivers in temple management should prioritize individuals with religious and administrative expertise over legal professionals to ensure ef....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
