The court determined that the legality of an eviction order under Section 250 of the MPLR Code must be challenged through proper statutory channels, emphasizing that disputed factual claims cannot be resolved in a writ.

Gwalior, Dated : 28/12/2020

Shri K.S.Tomar, Senior Advocate with Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma and Shri Dharmendra Nayak, Counsels for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for the State.

Heard through video conferencing.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

''(i) That, the impugned order dt.

18.11.2020 may kindly be set aside.

(ii) That, it may be held that the Tehsildar have no jurisdiction to disposes the petitioner from the Temple in question and also directed to remove the lock from the house of the petitioner.

(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit petitioner to live in house situated in premises of Aukaf Temple Bhuteshwar Mahadev.

(iv) That, the Police Authority may kindly be directed to register criminal case against respondent No.8 to 13 on the basis of complaint made by the mother of petitioner.

(v) That, an enquiry may kindly be initiate with respect to making forgery in the revenue record and take action against the involved officer and beneficiaries who sold out the land of the Temple Bhuteshwar.

(vi) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to given benefit to the petitioner according to the PARWANA P/2.

(vii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to given compensation of Rs.20 lac for loss caused due to harassment and damage the house article.

(viii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.''

Before considering the facts of the case, this Court thinks it apposite to mention that Shri Tomar after attacking the order dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) submitted that he does not want to press other allegations and relief(s), and would like to confine his arguments to the order dated 18-11-2020 (Annexure P/1).

Accordingly, he prayed for some time to amend the petition. At this time, Shri V.K. Sharma, briefing counsel, intervened in the matter and submitted that Shri Ankur Modi, Additional Advocate General (respondent No.13) was present on the spot at the time of execution of order dated 18.11.2020 but unfortunately the allegations against him are being given up.

Since there was a difference of opinion between the arguing counsel and briefing counsel, therefore, this Court directed the arguing counsel to continue with his arguments without withdrawing allegations against respondent no.13.

It is also not out of place to mention here that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition against the notice dated 6-11-2020 issued by Tahsildar, Gwalior which was registered as W.P. No.17684/2020. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with all necessary documents and pleadings.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing in a house situated in Bhuteshwar Sabd Pratap Ashram temple of Aukhana Gwalior. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said temple is a Muafi Aukaf property and his great-grandfather namely Shri Leeladhar Sharma was appointed as Pujari on 15.9.1942 and a Parwana was issued by Aukaf Riyasat, Gwalior and since then, the family of the petitioner is regularly offering prayer as Pujari of the temple Bhuteshwar Sabd Pratap Ashram. Being the pujari, the forefathers and thereafter, the petitioner is residing in the house situated within the temple premises. In the year 2003, the respondent No.9 i.e. Scindia Dev Sthan Trust Jai Vilas Palace, Gwalior submitted an application before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior for grant of NOC with respect to Bhuteshwar temple and, accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by the Collector, Gwalior and on the basis of the report submitted by the Collector, the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior by order dated 5.9.2003 informed the respondent No.9 that the property is a Muafi Aukaf Property and the Collector is the manager of the said property. The petitioner has also placed the copy of the report of Collector dated 28.6.2003 in which it is mentioned that the property is a Muafi Aukaf P