Disputes over religious property and rights should be resolved in the Civil Court, and the police should ensure the protection of the property until the legal rights and liabilities are determined.

S. N. AGGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner claim themselves to be Pujaris of Shiv mandir, Y-Block, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. This Mandir is stated to be built on a plot area of 450 sq. yards. The cause brought by the petitioners before this Court through this writ petition is that the Mandir property is going to be grabbed by certain toughes of the locality who have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 13 in the present writ petition. The petitioners are stated to have made several complaints regarding grabbing of Mandir property by outsiders to the police of sarojini Nagar and also to the DCP (South West) between 7/4/2004 and 27/4/2004. The grievance of the petitioners is that the police is siding with respondent Nos. 2 to 13 who intend to grab the Mandirproperty and forthat reason the petitioners have prayed for investigation into the matter to be conducted by Special Branch of Delhi police and for initiating criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 to 13.

( 2 ) NOTICE of this writ petition was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, status report has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 13. Opportunity was given to the petitioners to file rejoinder to the coutner affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents nos. 2 to 13 but despite opportunity given, the petitioners failed to file their rejoinder. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the petitioner's learned counsel requested for a date to enable him to file rejoinder. This request was strongly opposed on behalf of the respondents. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, T propose to hear the matter and to dispose it of finally.

( 3 ) THE status report has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 pursuant to an inquiry conducted into the allegations made by the petitioners in the present writ petition. A perusal of the status report would reveal that the petitioner No. 1 who claims himself to be a Pujari of Shiv Mandir is not correct. As per status report, the petitioner No. 1 s father Shri Satish Dixit was Pujari of the said temple who left his job due to his personal inability and thereafter petitioner No. 1 was appointed as pujari of the temple by the dissolved Managing Committee of the Mandir. The learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that petitioner No. 1 having been appointed as Pujari by a defunct Committee of the Mandir has no locus standi to file this petition. The status report further reveals that petitioner No. 2 is not a Pujari of the temple but merely a Sewadar in the Mandir. The learned Counsel for the respondents have drawn my attention to the pleadings in the file to show that 3-4 civil suits are pending between the parties regarding right of the petitioners to act as Pujari of the temple and also regarding various other activities of the temple.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the file of the present case, I have reached to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties is regarding their respective rights to control the affairs of the Mandir and the same can be properly looked into by the Civil Court which would decide their rights and liabilities after hearing them in suits pending there. However, the Station house Officer of the area is hereby directed that he would ensure that the property of the Mandir in question is not grabbed by anybody and till the time the rights and liabilities of the parties are decided in appropriate proceedings, the affairs of the mandir be controlled by a duly constituted Committee.

( 5 ) THE present writ petition stands disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.