A dispute as to the right of worship in a temple or other place of worship necessarily involves a dispute as to the right of user of land within the meaning of that term in Section 147, Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference to a F. B. made by a Bench of this Ct. in a matter arising out of proceedings Under Section 147, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these proceedings can be shortly stated as follows.

( 3 ) IN Chandernagore there is a deity named Sri Sri Govinda Jiu popularly known as Gopalji Thakur. The present petnr. claims to be the shebait of the said deity and according to him the deity is a family deity. The opposite parties who were religiously minded Hindus of the Districts contend that Gopalji Thakur is a public deity and that the temple in which the deity is housed and the adjoining lands form a public debutter and that from time immemorial the Hindus of the locality used to worship the said deity in the temple and offer puja to it. The opposite parties alleged that the petnr. had in recent times attempted to obstruct the public in the worship of this deity by keeping the door of the temple closed and refusing would-be worshippers access thereto. As a result of this conduct on the part of the petnr. it is alleged that the feelings of the devout and religious Hindus had been inflamed and that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. The opposite parties applied to the Sub-Divisional Mag. of Chandernagore for an order Under Section 144, Cr. P. C. The learned Sub-Divisional Mag. after consideration of a police report and other materials before him eventually drew up proceedings Under Section 147, Cr. P. C. The petnr. had been called upon to show cause and it was after considering his representations that the learned Mag. made the order of 17-1-1950 drawing up proceedings under the said section.

( 4 ) THE petnr. thereupon moved the learned Sess. J. , Hooghly Under Section 438, Cr. P. C. praying that the matter be refd. to the H. C. with a view to having the proceedings quashed. This appln. to the learned Sess. J. was dismissed. Thereupon the petnr. filed this petn. in this Ct. praying that the proceedings now pending before the learned Mag. at Chandernagore be quashed upon the ground that the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE petn. came for hearing before a Bench of this Ct. and on behalf of the petnr. it was contended that no order Under Section 147, Cr. P. C. could ever be made in such a case as this. That section, it was contended, dealt with disputes relating to the user of land. But no such dispute, it was said, existed in this case. The dispute admittedly was a dispute. as to the right of religiously minded Hindus of the locality to worship this particular deity in this temple and it was urged that where the dispute concerned merely a right to worship, it could not. possibly be said to be a dispute relating to user of land and therefore it could not fall within the purview of Section 147, Cr. P. C. In support of this contention a number of authorities of this Ct. were cited and there can be no doubt that those authorities do support the view that where a dispute relates to the worship of a deity in a temple the dispute does not fall within the purview of Section 147, Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties, a very considerable body of authorities from other Cts. was reld on to support their argument that a dispute as to the right to worship in a particular temple was a dispute relating to the user of land and therefore did fall within the provisions of Section 147, Cr. P. C.

( 7 ) THE Bench which heard the case were inclined to doubt the correctness of the authorities of this Ct. and were inclined to take the almost unanimous view of the other H. Cts. that a dispute as to the right to worship was a dispute relating to the user of the land or the place of worship in question. As the Bench could not dissent from the views expressed in the decisions of this Ct. this reference was made to a F. B.

( 8 ) IN accordance with the Rules of this Ct. questions were formulated for the opinion of the F. B. and the case was also refd. for decision.

( 9