The duty of the manager to protect temple property and not usurp it for personal gain.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.04.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 which contains a Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondents no to stop the petitioner for any sale or any kind use pendency of the writ petition.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondents not to take any action upon the application of the respondent no 5, in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land of Khevat No. 26 measuring 10 acres 14 decimal situated at village Rajpur, was purchased by the ancestor of the petitioner namely Sri Radha Prasad and thus, the petitioner is rightful owner. He further submits that earlier there were 11 plot numbers, which, after consolidation, were converted into one plot number being khasra Plot No. 502, Village Rajpur Bangar, Tehsil and District Mathura. He further submits that there is a decree of civil court and the rights of the petitioner in the land in question stand settled and, therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the rights of the petitioner in the land in question.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel submits that neither ancestor of the petitioner nor the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. He submits that the land in question was purchased by Sri Thakur Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir through Manager Radha S/o Makkhan Lal by a registered sale deed dated 28.05.1915. The compromise decree obtained by the father of the petitioner was a collusive decree in which there was no compromise by the Deity which is the actual owner of the property in question. He referred to various papers of the affidavit of compliance/short counter affidavit dated 07.09.2022 filed today in court on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the copy of the aforesaid sale deed dated 28.05.1915 stands admitted to the petitioner inasmuch as he himself has filed it along with supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2022. He further submits that the name of the Deity stands recorded in the revenue records from decades together and the revenue entries particularly Akar Patra 45 and the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer are in conformity with the sale deed dated 28.05.1915. He further submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question and, therefore, he has no right to sell it.

Discussion and Findings:

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the present writ petition. On 22.08.2022, this court passed the following order:

“Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Petitioner and respondent no. 5 are the real brothers.

Grievance of the petitioner is that disputed property being khasra plot no. 502, Rajpur Bangar is a private property and it does not belong to the Deity and therefore in terms of the compromise decree dated 26.5.2005 for partition, no interference can be made by any one for sale of his share in the property by the petitioner.

Prima-facie records of this writ petition indicate that the property belongs to the Deity viz. “Thakur Radha Mohn Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Baag Agar Bihari, Vrindavan.” The petitioner's father was merely a sevayat. Prima-facie it appears that petitioner's father and his sons colluded to grab the property belonging to the Deity and for that purpose an Injunction Suit No. 751 of 2003 was filed. After a detailed order dated 16.02.200