SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Virendra Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Anurag Mishra – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 1737 of 2026



##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20448

1 WA-1737-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

&

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

th

ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 1737 of 2026

VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

Versus

ANURAG MISHRA AND OTHERS

&

WRIT APPEAL No. 1738 of 2026

RAJ KUMAR SHARMA ALIAS RAJU

Versus

ANURAG MISHRA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

IN WRIT APPEAL No. 1737 of 2026

Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocates for

the appellant.

Shri A.S. Bhadauria - Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondent

Nos. 2 to 5 /State.

AND

IN WRIT APPEAL No. 1738 of 2026

Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocates

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SANJAY

NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR

Signing time: 7/14/2026

6:46:28 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20448

2 WA-1737-2026

for the appellant.

Shri A.S. Bhadauria - Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the

respondent Nos. 2 to 5 /State.

ORDER

Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla

W.A. No. 1738/2026 has been filed assailing the decision of the writ

Court passed on 22/04/2026 in W.P. No. 1597/2026 (Anurag Mishra vs.

Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju), while W.A. No. 1737/2026 has arisen out of

order passed on the same date in W.P. No. 1600/2026 (Anurag Mishra vs.

Virendra Kumar Sharma @ Guddu and Ors.). Although, two different orders

are assailed herein, the dispute is common in nature, hence, both these

connected writ appeals are considered conjointly.

2. Two orders were passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal

Division, Morena on 30/12/2025 in cases No. 377 & 378/2024-25/appeal,

holding that no fresh appointment of Pujari to the temple of

Vankhandeshwar Mahadev is required and they were challenged in W.P. No.

1597/2026 and W.P. No. 1600/2026 by respondent herein, namely Anurag

Mishra.

3. The chronology of the long litigation between the parties need to be

summed up here. It is not in dispute is that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhind

passed an order on the death of Ahyodha Prasad, the earlier Pujari, and

appointed his grand son Virendra Kumar as Pujari under order dated

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SANJAY

NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR

Signing time: 7/14/2026

6:46:28 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20448

3 WA-1737-2026

10.05.1999. Prior to it, there was also an order dated 10/01/1995, appointing

Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju as Pujari to that temple after the death of his

father Pujari Vishwanath Sharma, although record related to this entry is not

traceable. Respondent - Anurag Mishra filed an appeal before the Collector

against both these orders and Collector under order dated 20/12/2010,

directed to issue notice to show cause why fresh appointment of Pujari be

not ordered and treat the order of Sub Divisional Officers as null and void.

Instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, appellants Virendra Kumar

Sharma and Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju preferred two revisions in the Court

of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena which were

decided on 11/03/2011 by allowing them with a direction to Sub Divisional

Officer that he would be free to enquire into the matter from time to time and

proceed according to law, if he found any deficiency in service of the temple,

etc.

4. This order was challenged in W.P. No. 3076/2011 & W.P. No.

3077/2011 and both of them were jointly decided on 21/02/2018 by the writ

Court by setting aside the order under challenge dated 11/03/2011 and by

effecting the revival of the order of the Collector dated 20/12/2010 with

further direction to the Collector to start from where thread was left and to

conduct enquiry, if required as per law.

5. The Court of Collector decided the matter afresh and held that none

of the parties could produce any document to show the validity of their

appointment as Pujari. It further held the post of Pujari as vacant and

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SANJAY

NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR

Signing time: 7/14/2026

6:46:28 PM

##PAGE4##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20448

4 WA-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top