Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma

2025 INSC 700
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29702 OF 2024]


ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
& ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T


SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant
against the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in
Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter
" Impugned Order ”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad (hereinafter “ High Court ”), whereby the High Court
allowed the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.05.15
14:29:41 IST
Reason:
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/Respondent No. 3
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 1 of 62


(hereinafter “ Trial Court ”), and remanded the matter back for
fresh consideration.
3. During the course of the hearing, this Court has allowed
I.A. No. 15019/2025, being an application for intervention filed
by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4; and I.A. No.
16856/2025, being an application for intervention filed by Shri
Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan,
Mathura, is a registered society under the Societies Registration
Act, and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj
Temple, Govardhan, Mathura on 18.11.1957.
4.2 The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus
to the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple,
as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged
elections held on 24.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. Consequently, Shri
Govind Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “ Plaintiff ”) filed Original
Suit No. 332 of 1999 (hereinafter “ Civil Suit ”) seeking a
permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent
No. 5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all
types of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both
the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent No. 5 also filed two
separate election petitions pursuant to the same, which came to
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 2 of 62


be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the
Societies Registration Act.
4.3 Vide order dated 11.02.2000, the Prescribed Authority held
the election dated 24.04.1999 to be valid by which Respondent
No. 5 was declared to be the Manager.
4.4 Aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition before
the High Court, being WP (C) No. 9601 of 2000, which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2006 on the ground of being
infructuous.
4.5 Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006, and his
son Jitendra Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “ Plaintiff ”) moved an
application seeking to be impleaded in the Civil Suit, and setting
up his claim to be appointed as Manager of Committee of
Management.
4.6 Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the Trial Court in the Civil
Suit appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate as
Receiver of the temple, who was also the advocate representing
the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit.
4.7 Respondent No. 5 preferred a Writ Petition, being No.
4468 of 2021, against the order dated 30.07.2021 and the
appointment of an advocate as the receiver. Vide order dated
23.11.2021, the High Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2021
with the consent of the parties, and remanded the matter back to
the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 3 of 62


4.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Trial Court decided the
application for appointment of Receiver and appointed a Seven
Member Committee (hereinafter “ the Committee ”), which
included 3 lawyers. While deciding the constitution of the
Committee, Respondent No. 1 herein had made an application
before the Trial Court expressing his desire to be appointed.
However, Respondent No. 1 did not find mention in the
Committee on account of him being in government service and
being unable to devote his time sufficiently to the temple
management. Pertinently, the Appellant herein was appointed as
a member of the said Committee.
4.9 Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
preferred a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 4429/2023, for prosecuting and punishing the Ld.
Civil Judge/Respondent No. 3 for her wilful disobedience of the
order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the High Court on the ground
that instead of appointing a single Receiver, a Seven Member
Committee of Receiver has been appointed.
4.10 Vide Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, the High Court
set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court as it
frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (hereinafter “ CPC ”), and remitted the matter back
for consideration of the application afresh in the light of
directions of the High Court order dated 23.11.2021. The High
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 4 of 62


Court observed that in the present case, the Civil Suit has been
pending for over 25 years and only plaintiff evidence has
concluded to date. Further, the High Court observed that there are
eight temples which are all under the administration of Receivers
and most of them are managed by practicing advocates of
Mathura. The High Court directed the Trial Court to make every
endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver who is connected
with the management of a temple and has some religious leaning
towards the deity.
5. Aggrieved, the Appellant who was not a party before the
High Court, has preferred the present SLP on the grounds of
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, secular nature of
appointment, and eligibility of advocates as receivers.
6. During the course of the hearing, vide interim order dated
09.12.2024, this Court observed as under:
“1. Permission to file SLP is granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who
claims to be one of the Committee Members
appointed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Mathura (Trial Court) vide the Order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.S. No. 332/1999 for
management and operation i.e. Receiver/Manager
of the Temple. The said order has been set aside by
the High Court vide the important order dated
27.08.2024, with direction to remit the matter back

to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
3. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023,
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 5 of 62


highlights the glaring state of affairs prevailing in
the State of Uttar Pradesh, particularly, in the
District-Mathura with regard to the administration
of the Trusts in Temples, which are supposed to be
very important and sacred places for Hindus.
4. The glaring observations made by the High Court
in its impugned order, are reproduced as hereunder;
……….“1.Receivership in the temple
town of Mathura has become the new
norm. Most of the famous and ancient
temples are in the grip of legal battle,
restraining the temple trust, its Shebait
and the Committee to manage its
affairs and are being run by persons
appointed by the Court as Receivers
under Order XL of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as
‘C.P.C.’).
2. Out of the list of 197 temples as
provided by District Judge, Mathura
on 23.05.2024, there are civil
litigations pending of these temples
situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan,
Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc.
The litigation ranges from the year
1923 till the year 2024. In these
famous temples of Vrindavan,
Govardhan and Barasana, practising
advocates of Mathura Court have been
appointed Receivers. The interest of
Receiver lies in keeping the litigation
pending. No effort is made to conclude
the civil proceedings, as the entire
control of temple administration vest
in the hands of Receiver. Most of the
litigation is in respect of management
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 6 of 62


of temples and appointment of
Receivers.
3. A practising lawyer cannot devote
sufficient time for the administration
and management of a temple,
especially of Vrindavan and
Govardhan, which needs skill in the
temple management along with full
devotion and dedication. It has become
a symbol of status in the city of
Mathura.
4. The present contempt application
under Section 12 of Contempt of
Courts Act has been filed by a stranger
for punishing the opposite party on the
ground that earlier Writ Court on
23.11.2021, while disposing of Matters
under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021
had set aside the order of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mathura passed in
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999
appointing an advocate as a Receiver
who was also the counsel of the
plaintiff.
5. The court below was required to
decide the application for appointment
of Receiver afresh on merits. Pursuant
to order of writ Court, the Court below
proceeded to decide the application for
appointment of Receiver on
28.03.2023, and appointed a Seven
Member Committee of Receiver which
included three lawyers.
6. The entire thrust of the applicant
counsel is that court below should not
have appointed a Committee of
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 7 of 62


Receiver, but should have considered
the application moved by the applicant
for being appointed as a Receiver, it
should have appointed any one person
connected with temple as Receiver, and
not a Committee.
7. Learned counsel then contended
that on 18.11.1957 Sri Giriraj Sewak
Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan was
constituted to manage the affairs of Sri
Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura,
which was registered under Societies
Registration Act, and the Committee
continued till 1998 without any
dispute.
8. As dispute arose between office
bearers of the Committee, an election
petition was filed which was referred
to Prescribed Authority on 13.12.1999.
The Prescribed Authority on
11.02.2000 held the election to be
valid. Against the said order, Writ-C
No. 9601 of 2000 was filed. In the
meantime, one Govind Prasad filed
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 for
declaring him as Manager of the
Committee of Management in
pursuance of the election dated
21.04.1999. On 10.05.1999, an
interim injunction was granted. The
Writ Petition No. 9601 of 2000 which
was filed challenging the order of
Prescribed Authority was dismissed on
10.02.2006.
9. Unfortunately, Govind Prasad
Purohit passed away on 28.11.2006,
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 8 of 62


and one Jitendra Prasad Purohit
moved an impleadment application in
the original suit setting up his claim to
be appointed as Manager of
Committee of Management. It was in
the year 2021 that one Nand Kishore
Upadhyay, Advocate was appointed as
Receiver of the temple who was the
advocate of Ramakant Kaushik, who
was also impleaded in the Original
Suit No. 332 of 1992 by removal of
Jitendra Prasad Purohit. The order of
appointment of Nand Kishore
Upadhyay, Advocate dated 30.07.2021
was challenged by way of Matters
under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021
which was disposed of on 23.11.2021
requiring the application to be
considered afresh.
10. This Court on 21.05.2024 had
required the counsel appearing for
Allahabad High Court to seek
information from the District and
Sessions Judge, Mathura as to pending
civil suits in respect of temples situated
in District-Mathura, and also furnish
complete information in regard to date
of institution of suit, stage of suit,
appointment of Receiver in the suit
along with the date, and also
information as to the advocate
appointed as Receiver in the said suits.
11. On 24.05.2024, Sri Chandan
Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for Allahabad High Court placed
before the Court the instructions so
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 9 of 62


received by him from District Judge,
Mathura along with list of 197 civil
suits which are pending in the Civil
Court at Mathura in respect of old
temples with the entire details of
temple name and its location, date of
institution of suit, stage of suit,
whether Receiver appointed or not, if
appointed date of appointment and
name and details of advocates
appointed as Receiver.
12. Another instruction dated
27.05.2024 has also been received
from District Judge, Mathura giving
the entire details of the cases
mentioned from Serial No. 1 to 8 of list
submitted earlier.
13. Sri Sharma raised a preliminary
objection as to the maintainability of
the contempt application on the
ground that the applicant is neither a
party in the suit nor was under the zone
of consideration for appointment of
Receiver, thus, could not maintain the
present contempt application. He then
contended that earlier round of
litigation was filed by one Dileep
Kumar Sharma who was a party to
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 and
impleadment application of the
applicant till date has not been

decided.
14. I have heard respective counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 10 of 62


15. The concept of appointment of
Receiver lies under Order XL of C.P.C.
Relevant provision of Order XL Rule 1
reads as under:-
“1. Appointment of receivers.—(1)
Where it appears to the Court to be just
and convenient, the Court may by
order—
(a) appoint a receiver of any property,
whether before or after decree;
(b) remove any person from the
possession or custody of the property;
(c) commit the same to the possession,
custody or management of the
receiver; and
(d) confer upon the receiver all such
powers, as to bringing and defending
suits and for the realisation,
management, protection, preservation
and improvement of the property, the
collection of the rents and profits
thereof, the application and
disposal of such rents and profits, and
the execution of documents as the
owner himself has, or such of those
powers as the Court thinks fit. (2)
Nothing in this rule shall authorise the
Court to remove from the possession or
custody of property, any person whom
any party to the suit has not a present
right so to remove.
16. From perusal of provision of Order
XL Rule 1 C.P.C., it is clear that the
object of appointing a Receiver is to
protect, preserve and manage the
property during the pendency of a suit.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 11 of 62


The words “to be just and convenient”
have been substituted for the words “to
be necessary for the realization,
preservation or better custody, or
management of any property, movable
or immovable, subject of a suit or
attachment”. The effect of this
amendment is that the Court may now
appoint a Receiver not only in a
particular case specified in the old
section, but in every case in which it
appears to the Court to be just and
convenient to do so.
17. The power of the Court to appoint
a Receiver under this order is subject
to the controlling provision of Section
94 and is to be exercised for preventing
the ends of justice from being
defeated. Section 94 CPC reads as
under;
“94. Supplemental Proceedings.-In
order to prevent the ends of justice
from being defeated the Court may, if
it is so prescribed,—
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the
defendant and bring him before the
Court to show cause why he should not
give security for his appearance, and if
he fails to comply with any order for
security
commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish
security to produce any property
belonging to him and to place the same
at the disposal of the Court or order
the attachment of any property;
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 12 of 62


(c) grant a temporary injunction and in
case of disobedience commit the
person guilty thereof to the civil prison
and order that his property be attached
and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property
and enforce the performance of his
duties by attaching and selling his
property;
(e) make such other interlocutory
orders as may appear to the Court to
be just and convenient.”
18. The source of power of the Court to
grant interim relief is under Section
94. However, exercise of that power
can only be done if the circumstances
of the case fall under the rules.
Therefore, when a matter comes before
the Court, the Court has to examine the
facts of each case and ascertain
whether the ingredients of Section 94
read with rules, in an order, are
satisfied and accordingly grant an
appropriate relief.
19.The word ‘may’ gives discretion to
the Court where it is alleged that the
suit property is under threat and
protection, preservation, management
and improvement of the property,
along with collection of rents and
profits is required, then the Court may
exercise its power during the pendency
of litigation by appointing any person
as Receiver.
20. In Satyanarayan Banerji &
Another Vs. Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 13 of 62


Bahadur & Others, AIR 1945 CAL
387, the Court held that object and
purpose of appointment of a Receiver
may generally be stated to be the
preservation of subject matter of the
litigation pending, a judicial
determination of the rights of the
parties thereto. The Receiver is
appointed for the benefit of all
concerned, he is the representative of
the Court and of all parties interested
in the litigation, wherein he is
appointed. The appointment of a
Receiver is an act of Court and made
in the interest of justice. He is an
officer or representative of the Court
subject to its order. His possession is
the possession of the Court.
21. In T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra)
Madras High Court had laid five
principles which can be described as
“panch sadachar” of our Courts
exercising equity jurisdiction in
appointing Receivers. Relevant
paragraph no. 13 of the judgment is
extracted here as under;
“13. The five principles which can be
described as the ‘panch sadachar’ of
our Courts exercising equity
jurisdiction in appointing receivers are
as follows:
(1) The appointment of a receiver
pending a suit is a matter resting in the
discretion of the Court. The discretion
is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a
sound and judicial discretion, taking
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 14 of 62


into account all the circumstances of
the case, exercised for the purpose of
permitting the ends of justice, and
protecting the rights of all parties
interested in the controversy and the
subject-matter and based upon the fact
that there is no other adequate remedy
or means of accomplishing the desired
objects of the judicial proceeding: —
‘Mathusri v. Mathusri,’ 19 Mad 120
(PC) (Z5); — ‘Sivagnanathammal v.
Arunachallam Pillai’, 21 Mad LJ 821
(Z6); — ‘Habibullah v. Abtiakallah’,
AIR 1918 Cal 882 (Z7); — ‘Tirath
Singh v. Shromani Gurudvvara
Prabandhak Committee’, AIR 1931
Lah 688 (Z8); — ‘Ghanasham v.
Moraba’, 18 Bom 474 (Z9); — ‘Jagat
Tarini Dasi v. Nabagopal Chaki’, 34
Cal 305 (Z10); — ‘Sivaji Raja Sahib v.
Aiswariyanandaji’, AIR 1915 Mad 926
(Z11); — ‘Prasanno Moyi Devi v. Beni
Madhab Rai’, 5 All 556 (Z12); —
‘Sidheswari Dabi v. Abhayeswari
Dabi’, 15 Cal 818 (Z13); — ‘Shromani
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee,
Amritsar v. Dharam Das’, AIR 1925
Lah 349 (Z14); — ‘Bhupendra Nath v.
Manohar Mukerjee’, AIR 1924 Cal

456 (Z15).
(2) The Court should not appoint a
receiver except upon proof by the
plaintiff that prima facie he has very
excellent chance of succeeding in the
S. suit. — ‘Dhumi v. Nawab Sajjad Ali
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 15 of 62


Khan’, AIR 1923 Lah 623 (Z16); —
‘Firm of Raghubir Singh Jaswant
v. Narinjan Singh’, AIR 1923 Lah 48
(Z17); — ‘Siaram Das v. Mohabir
Das’, 27 Cal 279 (Z18); —
‘Muhammad Kasim v. Nagaraja
Moopanar’, AIR 1928 Mad 813 (Z19);
— ‘Banwarilal Chowdhury v. Motilal’,
AIR 1922 Pat 493(Z20).
(3) Not only must the plaintiff show a
case of adverse and conflicting claims
to property, but, he must show some
emergency or danger or loss
demanding immediate action and of
his own right he must be reasonably
clear and free from doubt. The element
of danger is an important
consideration. A
Court will not act on possible danger
only; the danger must be great and
imminent demanding immediate relief.
It has been truly said that a Court will
never appoint a receiver merely on the
ground that it will do no harm. —
‘Manghanmal Tarachand v.
Mikanbai’, AIR 1933 Sind 231 (Z21);
— ‘Bidurramji v. Keshoramji’, AIR
1939 Oudh 61 (Z22); — ‘Sheoambar
Ban v. Mohan Ban’, AIR 941 Oudh 328
(Z23).
(4) An order appointing a receiver will
not be made where it has the effect of
depriving a defendant of a ‘de facto’
possession since that might cause
irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as
to title only, the Court very reluctantly
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 16 of 62


disturbs possession by receiver, but if
the property is exposed to danger and
loss and the person in possession has
obtained it through fraud or force the
Court will interpose by receiver for the
security of the property. It would be
different where the property is shown
to be ‘in medio’, that is to say, in the
enjoyment of no one, as the Court can
hardly do wrong in taking possession:
it will then be the common interest of
all the parties that the Court should
prevent a scramble as no one seems to
be in actual lawful enjoyment of the
property and no harm can be done to
anyone by taking it and preserving it
for the benefit of the legitimate who
may prove successful. Therefore, even
if there is no allegation of waste and
mismanagement the fact that the
property is more or less ‘in medio’ is
sufficient to vest a Court with
jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. —
‘Nilambar Das v. Mabal Behari’, AIR
1927 Pat 220 (Z24); — ‘Alkama Bibi
v. Syed Istak Hussain’, AIR 1925 Cal
970 (Z25); — ‘Mathuria Debya v.
Shibdayal Singh’, 14 Cal WN 252
(Z26); — ‘Bhubaneswar Prasad v.
Rajeshwar Prasad’, AIR 1948 Pat 195
(Z27). Otherwise a receiver should not
be appointed in supersession of a bone
fide possessor of property in
controversy and bona fides have to be
presumed until the contrary is
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 17 of 62


established or can be indubitably
inferred.
(5) The Court, on the application of a
receiver, looks to the conduct of the
party who makes the application and
will usually refuse to interfere unless
his conduct has been free from blame.
He must come to Court with clean
hands and should not have disentitled
himself to the equitable relief by
laches, delay, acquiescence etc.”
22. The discretion given to the Court
has to be exercised with great care and
caution. It cannot in a routine manner
appoint Receiver and continue the
management of the temple/trust
through such appointments. Every
endeavour should be there to get the
dispute decided at the earliest without
prolonging it and running the entire
show through the Receivers.
23. The present case is an example
where the original suit was filed in the
year 1999 claiming relief of permanent
injunction restraining defendants from
interfering in management and
running of the temple. The suit is
pending for last 25 years, and report of
District Judge reveals that only
plaintiff evidence has taken place. No
effort has been made by court
concerned to expedite the matter and
decide it. Only application for
appointment of Receiver has been
considered on number of occasions
and the temple trust is being run
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 18 of 62


through Receivers. The entire dispute
hingesm around the appointment of
Receiver. Earlier this Court in the year
2021 had set aside the order of court
below appointing an advocate as
Receiver and remanded back the
matter for consideration afresh.
24.The officer against whom contempt
has been alleged has now proceeded to
appoint a Seven Member Committee of
Receivers which includes three
advocates. The order dated 28.03.2023
frustrates the provision of Order XL
Rule 1 C.P.C.
25. In the garb of provisions of Order
XL Rule 1 C.P.C., the Courts cannot
prolong litigation and run a
temple/trust or manage any suit
property through Receiver without
making any effort to decide the lis. 25
long years have elapsed and only
plaintiff evidence has taken place.
Successive litigations have come to
this Court only questioning the very
legality of appointment of Receiver.
The suit is proceeding at snail pace.
There is no effort either on the part of
the court below or the Receiver who
has been appointed to get the suit
decided. Rule 1(d) of Order XL clearly
provides that all powers, such as,
bringing and defending suits and for
realisation, management, protection,
preservation and improvement of the
property, collection of rents and profits
thereto, the application and disposal of
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 19 of 62


such rents and profits and the
execution of documents are all
conferred upon the Receiver.
26.It appears that the Receiver
appointed by the Court made no effort
to get the suit decided. His only interest
is to continue as a Receiver and
control the entire administration of the
temple.
The instant contempt application at the
behest of Devendra Kumar Sharma
clearly reveals that he has only moved
an impleadment application in the suit
of 1999 to be impleaded as a party and
has applied to be appointed as a
Receiver which has not been
considered by court below.
27. The averment made in the contempt
application by the applicant and
submission of his counsel reveals his
intention to become a Receiver. It is not
only the interest of the applicant but
also of other persons to continue as a
Receiver in the temples of District-
Mathura without there being any
adjudication to the civil litigation.
28. The list of eight temples placed by
District Judge demonstrates that,
Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan;
Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo;
Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir,
Gokul; Mukharbind, Goverdhan;
Danghati, Goverdhan; Anant Shri
Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir
Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are
all under the grip of Receivers and
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 20 of 62


most of them are managed by
practising advocates of Mathura.
29. Now, time has come when all these
temples should be freed from the
clutches of practising advocates of
Mathura Court and Courts should
make every endeavour to appoint, if
necessary, a
Receiver who is connected with the
management of a temple and has some
religious leaning towards the deity. He
should also be well versed with the
Vedas and Shastras. Advocates and
people from district administration
should be kept away from the
management and control of these
ancient temples. Effort should be made
for disposing of the suit, involving
temple disputes at the earliest and
matter should not be lingered for
decades.
30. From perusal of list of pending
cases provided by District Judge,
Mathura, it appears that oldest of the
suit being Original Suit No. 94 of 1923
of Dauji Maharaj Mandir was decided
by a compromise decree on
15.10.1924. However, on a regular
misc. application filed before court
below, a Receiver has been appointed
and the matter is being continued and
the temple is being managed by a
Receiver. The court below should make
every endeavour to decide the misc.
application which is pending therein
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 21 of 62


and not run the temple through a
Receiver.
31. The present case which was filed
on 10.05.1999 till date has not been
decided despite 25 years having
elapsed. The court below is requested
to expedite the matter and proceed to
decide the same without wasting any
time in appointment of Receiver and
continuing the management through
them. The order dated 28.03.2023
passed by Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Mathura appointing a Seven
Member Committee is liable to be set
aside as it is not based on any sound
principle of law. The court below is
expected to comply the order passed by
writ Court on 23.11.2021 in Matters
under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021
and decide the application for
Receiver in consonance with
provisions of Order XL Rule 1 making
every effort keeping away the
advocates from the said responsibility.
32. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court
requests the District Judge, Mathura to
take personal pain and inform his
officers about this order and also make
every endeavour to conclude the civil
disputes regarding temples and trusts
of District-Mathura as expeditiously
as possible.
33. Prolonging the litigation is only
creating further disputes in the temples
and leading to indirect involvement of
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 22 of 62


practising advocates and district
administration in the temples, which is
not in the interest of the people having
faith in Hindu religion.”………...

5. Having regard to the above observations, it
appears that the issues of Temple administration,
and the appointment of Receivers in the suits
pertaining to the Temple administration, have
become most difficult conundrum for the Courts and
very lucrative court proceedings for the Advocates
in the State of Uttar Pradesh, especially in the
District Mathura.
6. It may be noted that the Courts, which are
considered to be the temples of justice, cannot be
permitted to be used or misused for the benefit of a
group of people, who would have vested interest in
prolonging the litigations. Nobody should be
permitted to abuse or misuse the process of law
under the guise of prolonged litigations in the
Court.
7. Having regard to the state of affairs narrated by
the High Court in its impugned order, it is directed
that the Principal District Judge, District Court at
Mathura shall submit a Report with regard to the
following, through the Registrar (Nazir) of the
District Court, so as to reach to this Court on or
before 19.12.2024;
i. List of Temples in the District of
Mathura in respect of which the
litigations are pending and in which
the Receivers appointed by the Courts.
ii. Since when such litigations are
pending and the status of such
proceedings.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 23 of 62


iii. The names and status of the
persons, particularly of the Advocates
appointed by the Courts as Receivers.
iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid
to the Receivers appointed in such
proceedings.

8. Issue notice, returnable on 19.12.2024.
9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order
to the concerned Principal District Judge, District
Court Mathura.”


Accordingly, this Court directed that the Principal District Judge,
District Court at Mathura shall submit a Report with regard to
(i) List of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which
the litigations are pending and in which the Receivers appointed
by the Courts; (ii) since when such litigations are pending and the
status of such proceedings; (iii) the names and status of the
persons, particularly of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as
Receivers, and (iv) the remuneration, if any, being paid to the
Receivers appointed in such proceedings.
7. Further, several interim applications came to be filed by
interested parties for permission to intervene and to be heard in
the present case. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, this Court
permitted the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 to
intervene, upon an application highlighting the following issues:
“3. The applicant submits that the applicant is
concerned with poor facilities at most of the Temple
sites particularly in the Braj region which include
Vrindavan, Govardhan, Bandeo, Barsana, Matth,
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 24 of 62


etc. The applicant is also concerned with the rising
cases of untoward incidents of stampedes, law and
order, etc. at the Temple sites. There is an emergent
need to create better facilities for the devotees
which would involve creation of infrastructure at
the Temple sites besides also creating an effective
and transparent management of the Temples.
4. The applicant submits that the State of Uttar
Pradesh has already enacted The Uttar Pradesh
Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015
and has constituted Braj Planning and
Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Board’)…
5. This Board is thus formed and constituted for the
purpose of preparing and implementing plans to be
in conformity with the Brij Culture and Architecture
in the Braj region. The Board is thus a body which
is empowered to do all that is needed to preserve the
rich heritage culture of the Braj region.
…
8. This Hon'ble Court has further noted that the
District Judge, Mathura has placed a further list of
eight Temples which explains that Radha Vallabh
Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir,
Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul;
Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;
Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir
Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under the
grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by
practising Advocates of Mathura. The present
Special Leave Petition deals with the issue of
Receiverships being appointed by the Civil Courts
who have been interested only in the delays of the
proceedings for their extraneous reasons. It is
submitted that it is in these circumstances that the
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 25 of 62


role of State Government becomes pivotal in
ensuring early resolution of the present problem.
…
11. The applicant submits that one of the holiest and
sacred Temples in the Braj region is Shree Banke
Behari Temple at Vrindavan. This is one of the most
holiest, famous and pious temples of Krishna which
is stated to have been constructed sometime in
1864. This Temple holds immense spiritual
significance and the Temple attracts large crowd of
devotees which most of the time leads to untoward
incidents and even deaths. There are serious issues
of crowd management besides provision for basic
amenities for the devotees in and around the
Temple. This 162 year old temple is spread over on
a limited area of 1200 sq.ft only. On an average,
number of devotees who visit Temple are about 40
to 50 thousands per day and during the weekends
and some holidays, the number go beyond 1.5 Lakhs
to 2.5 Lakhs per day. During festival and auspicious
days such as Janamashtmi, Raksha Bandhan,
Sharad Purnima, etc., the number of devotees cross
figure of 5 Lakh in number.
12. The applicant submits that even with respect to
this temple, a Civil Judge (JD)/ Munsif, Mathura is
acting as an administrator and is managing the
affairs of the Temple since the year 2016. The
temple was the site of an unfortunate stampede in
the year 2022, resulting in the death and injuries of
devotees. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.
1509 of 2022 came to be filed before the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking
directions to ensure public order in and around the
Temple of Shri Bankey Behari. The Hon’ble High
Court required the State Government to submit a
plan/ scheme for the development of the entire area.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 26 of 62


The applicant prepared and submitted a Scheme in
the said proceedings for development of the temple
area as a Corridor with the purchase of about 5
Acres of land around the Temple for facilitating
Darshan and Pooja by the Devotees. For this, the
State Government proposed that the Court may
permit utilization of the Temple funds so that the
land so purchased for the purpose of Temple
remains to be the ownership of the Temple/ deity. It
is submitted that it would be necessary that such
land is purchased by the Temple management as it
would allow the Temple management to have
complete control of the entire Temple premises
without any outside interference.
…
14. The Applicant submits that if the present
Application is allowed, it will bring on record the
Scheme for Shri Banke Bihari Temple, to make
provisions for basic amenities and facilities
including parking area, etc. and create a corridor
on the lines of the corridor made in respect of Kashi
Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi.”
(emphasis supplied)

8. Further, this Court also heard an intervention application
filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5, who is also
the Defendant in the Civil Suit before the Trial Court, wherein it
was stated:
“4. That Applicant herein being a duly elected
Secretary of Shri Giri Raj Sevak Samiti is a
necessary party. However, the Petitioner with
ulterior motives has neither made the Applicant nor
the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti a party to the present
SLP wherein Petitioner seeks a relief that an
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 27 of 62


advocate be appointed as a receiver of the Sri
Giriraj Sewak Samiti. The Applicant’s name though
finds mentioned in the synopsis of the instant SLP
as a Defendant in the main Suit being Original Suit
No. 332 of 1999, the Petitioner purposefully did not
make the Applicant a party so that several facts
which are crucial for the adjudication of the present
matter may not come to light before this Hon’ble
Court.”

Vide order dated 06.02.2025, this Court permitted the
applicant/Respondent No. 5 to intervene and be heard in the
present case.
9. Submissions by the Appellant
9.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strongly urged
before us that the directions given by the High Court is contrary
to law and prays for the same to be set aside.
9.2 It is vehemently submitted before us that the High Court
failed to consider the application of contempt before it, and
observe that the same is impermissible and without basis as there
is no contempt committed in the present case. This is because the
Trial Court (i) appointed a fresh Receiver, and (ii) provided an
opportunity to be heard to all the parties. (Reliance placed on
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing Director, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M. George
Ravishekaran & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 373, para 19) .
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 28 of 62


9.3 That as per Order XL of the CPC, there is no statutory bar
against appointing advocates as Receivers. Their legal expertise
is beneficial in managing complex legal and administrative issues
associated with temple affairs. For instance, Order XL Rule 1(d)
of the CPC provides the kind of power that can be conferred upon
the Receiver, such as defending suits for the realisation and
management of the property.
9.4 That the High Court’s order creates an unreasonable and
arbitrary classification between individuals devoted to the temple
with religious knowledge and practicing advocates, violating the
constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article
14 of the Constitution. It is argued that the administration and
management of a temple and full devotion and dedication to the
temple are two distinct things which need to be separated from
each other. A person’s religious beliefs and their devotion and
dedication is personal to them and its expression varies from
person to person. It is baseless to gauge and relate a person's
management competence with his/her beliefs and their ability to
understand the religious texts.
9.5 That the High Court failed in not considering that the
omnibus allegations such as an advocate’s vested interest in
keeping litigation pending and therefore them not being a right
fit to be Receivers are both unsubstantiated and legally unsound.
However, an advocate is more capable than anyone else to
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 29 of 62


function as a neutral party and have a deep understanding of the
administrative issues.
10. Submissions by the Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2

10.1 Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR, Learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, has first attempted to
provide a historical background to the Giriraj temple. It is
submitted that the Danghati Temple, Govardhan is a privately
owned temple which was founded by one Sakta Ram baba, a
local Godhaniya brahmin, who was survived by four sons
namely, Udho, Madho, Narayan and Murli and the lineage
continues till date and each lineage of the said sons is known as
‘Thok’. As per the byelaws of the Giriraj Samiti, each ‘Thok’ was
entitled to elect members for representation in Committee. This
committee of Management, in-turn, was empowered to elect 6
posts i.e. Sabhapati, Up-Sabhapati, Pradhan Matri, Up-Mantri,
Treasurer and Temple Manager, for a term of 3 years, pertinently
the byelaws provided that the except for the local brahmins of the
aforesaid ‘Thoks’, no other person would be the member of the
general body.
10.2 It is submitted that the Appellant herein lacks any locus
standi to file the present appeal. That the Impugned Order dated
27.08.2024, passed by the High Court, has been duly complied
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 30 of 62


with by the Trial Court through its order dated 12.09.2024, as one
Sh. Krishna Kumar Sharma (Sewayat) has been appointed as the
caretaker. It is further submitted that the order dated 28.03.2023
through which the Appellant was appointed as one of the
members of the committee managing the affairs of the temple,
has already been set aside by the High Court vide the Impugned
Order. Consequently, the Appellant’s appointment as a
committee member stands nullified, rendering the present appeal
infructuous.
10.3 That the very essence of appointing a receiver/caretaker is
to ensure that the temple's management is in the hands of
someone well-versed in its traditions and practices. A practicing
advocate cannot adequately devote time to the administration and
management of a religious institution. Given the intricate
religious and customary practices associated with the temple, the
need for a skilled and knowledgeable caretaker is paramount.
10.4 It is further argued that the present Receiver is ineligible,
and there is a need for an impartial custodian. Despite the
appointment of the present receiver, the suit is still at the stage of
recording the evidence of Plaintiff's Witness No. 1. The High
Court has emphasized the necessity of appointing a receiver who
not only has religious affinity towards the deity but is also
knowledgeable in the Vedas and Shastras. While the present
receiver is the son of the Vice-President of the Respondent
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 31 of 62


No. 5's Committee faction, as such he holds a vested interest in
the ongoing litigation as well. It is submitted that a receiver is a
representative of the Court and he must be an independent
custodian and where the question of managing a temple is
concerned such person should also have an understanding of the
temple's management. Given the receiver's vested interest, his
appointment is legally untenable and requires reconsideration,
which has been challenged by the Respondent No. 1 before the
Trial Court in Appeal No. 90/2024 titled ‘ Devendra Kumar
Sharma vs Giriraj Sewak Samiti & Ors. ’.
10.5 Respondent Nos. 1-2 belong to the 'Sewayat Samaj' and
are from Narayan and Udho thok respectively. It is jointly
proposed by them that either of them be appointed as Caretaker
of the temple subject to the orders of this Hon'ble Court as being
lifelong adherents of the temple's customs, Respondent Nos. 1-2
possess an intimate understanding of its traditions and religious
significance. It is also submitted that appointing a person who
lacks familiarity with the temple's religious practices would
endanger the trust and faith of the devotees. Additionally, due to
appointment of Receivers who are unfamiliar with practices of
the temples, over 400 families of the Sewayat Samaj depend on
temple-related benefits for their livelihood related expenses, such
as Kanyadaan, Ansh Daan, pensions, scholarships, temple
development grants, and facilities for devotees, which have not
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 32 of 62


been functioning properly despite this being essential
tradition/practice of the temple.
10.6 Further, the parties have pressed for expedited proceedings
and avoidance of administrative delays.
10.7 Lastly, it has been vehemently argued that the proposal by
the State/Respondent No. 4 to appoint a caretaker is vague and
ineffective, and the same has been strongly opposed. It is argued
that the sudden interest exhibited by the State appears to be a
reactionary measure following the High Court’s observations on
the glaring issues plaguing the temples in Mathura, rather than a
well-planned administrative decision.
11. Submissions by Respondent No. 4/State of Uttar
Pradesh
11.1 Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the State of
Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 has sought intervention in the
present case highlighting the glaring state of affairs in the state,
particularly, in Mathura with regard to the administration of
temples.
11.2 The State has placed an affidavit on record citing its
obligations under Article 25(2) of the Constitution read with the
judgement rendered in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India (2018)
7 SCC 785 , and requested that the State (i) be permitted to
appoint administrators in the eight temples highlighted, and (ii)
to utilize the funds of Shri Banke Bihari Temple only to the extent
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 33 of 62


of purchase of 5 acres of land around the temple to create a
holding area.
11.3 It is argued that the Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and
Development Board Act, 2015 came to be enacted for the
development, preservation and maintaining the Braj Heritage in
the District of Mathura. Under the Act, a Parishad has been
constituted which has the necessary expertise to administer the
temples in the region, and accordingly its services can be utilized
for appointing Administrators/Receivers for these temples.
11.4 The primary thrust of the Respondent No. 4’s argument
rests upon the dire situation of the Banke Bihari Temple in
Mathura, and the lack of proper administration and amenities
therein. The Temple is spread on a limited area of only 1200 sq.ft.
The number of devotees/visitors visiting per day is about 50,000,
of which the figure swells to about 1.5 Lakhs to 2.0 Lakhs per
day during the weekends and to a figure of almost 5 Lakhs plus
during the festival days. It is submitted that considering the
existing area, there is almost unmanageable number of devotees
who throng the Temple every day. The exigency of the situation
demands urgent and immediate remedial measures.
11.5 It has been apprised to the Court that at present, a Civil
Judge (JD), Munsif, Mathura is acting as an administrator of the
Temple since 2016. This Temple was the site of an unfortunate
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 34 of 62


stampede in the year 2022 resulting into death and injuries to
large number of devotees.
11.6 The learned senior counsel has placed on record a Scheme
for the development of the Banke Bihari Temple, which
contained a provision for the development of the temple area as
a corridor with the purchase of about 5 acres of land around the
temple to facilitate darshan and pooja by the devotees . The
infrastructure in the holding area would include the construction
of a huge parking lot, accommodation for the devotees, toilets,
security check posts and various other amenities. As per the
Report of the district administration and trusted architect, the cost
of purchase of the land was to be about Rs. 207 Crores, and the
cost of construction to be about Rs. 507 Crores. The State further
submits that the temple fund is currently more than Rs. 300
Crores. Accordingly, the State has filed a PIL, being No. 1509 of
2022, before the High Court seeking directions to ensure the
same.
11.7 It is further submitted that in order to ensure that the land
purchased remains in the name and ownership of the temple/
deity, the temple fund can be utilised to purchase the land. The
State has proposed to incur more than Rs. 500 Crores to develop
and construct the corridor. In relation to the same, while the High
Court has accepted the Scheme it has refused to permit the State
to utilize the temple funds.
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 35 of 62


11.8 The learned senior counsel relies on the judgement in the
case of Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple,
Varanasi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 4
SCC 606 , wherein this Court upheld the validity of the Kashi
Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and reaffirmed the delicate
balance between religious freedom and state regulation.
11.9 That under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court has
the power to do complete justice and give directions even in
respect of matters which was not directly under consideration or
directly impugned before this Court. (Reliance placed on Rajeev
Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 1).
12. Submissions by Respondent No. 5/Dilip Kumar Mishra
12.1 Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the
Respondent No. 5 has sought intervention in the present case
highlighting the misuse of the temples that have fallen into the
hands of a Receiver that have vested interest in prolonging
litigation.
12.2 That the election of Defendant No.1/Respondent No. 5
was held and has been recognised under section 25 of Societies
Registration Act, vide Order dated 11.02.2000 by the statutory
Prescribed Authority. The challenge to the said order has been
dismissed by the High Court, including the recall application.
The election of the present Respondent No. 5 has attained
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 36 of 62


finality, however despite that, the original Plaintiff in the suit, and
the stranger Advocates/Receivers have continued to prolong the
litigation to subserve their private agenda. Moreover, there are
more than 3,500 Applications filed by strangers to the Suit related
to managerial works of the temple. Further, subsequent elections
have been regularly held in the Society managing the Shri Thakur
Giriraj Ji Temple and a duly elected body exists for management
and administration of the temple.
12.3 That suits challenging the election of a duly elected body
are barred in view of statutory remedy available under section 25
of Societies Registration Act which empowers the prescribed
authority for that purpose. The present suit is continuing for
almost 25 years and judicial officials/receivers/advocates as
Receivers have been appointed with respect to the temple in the
garb of meeting the requirements of Order XL Rule 1 of CPC.
The High Court in contempt jurisdiction has expressed its strong
displeasure with respect to such appointments.
12.4 That the request of the State of Uttar Pradesh to be able to
administer the temples ought to be rejected as it has always
maintained the stand that all temple management committees
have the fundamental right under Article 25 to manage and
administer the temples/deities, and there is no enactment
empowering the State of UP to take over the administration and
management of Religious Endowment or Trusts, whether
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 37 of 62


temporarily or permanently. (Reliance placed on DR
Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2014) 5
SCC 75 ).
12.5 The following suggestions have been placed on record for
the expeditious end to the prolonged litigation:
“i. Time bound steps must be taken to return the
administration and management of the 197 temples
wherever judicial officers or advocates, or other
persons are appointed as Receivers as per the
report furnished to this Hon'ble Court and the
Hon'ble High Court;
ii. Wherever the elections have taken place and the
temple management Trusts or Societies are
statutorily recognized, including U/s 25 of the
Societies Registration Act, in the recent past, i.e.,
within the last 3 years, which includes the election
of Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma/ Defendant No. 1/
Respondent No.5, shall be handed over the accounts
and charge of the temple (Shri Thakur Giriraj Ji) by
the Receiver within 1 month;
iii. Wherever election could not take place due to a
pending litigation, fresh elections as per the
statutory requirements must be conducted, and
handover of the management by the Receiver to the
elected body must be ensured.
iv. For the effective implementation of the above
directions (i) to (iii), a special 3 member committee
may be appointed by this Hon'ble Court headed by
an Hon'ble Retired Judge, and consisting of the
statutorily Prescribed Authority under the Societies
Registration Act, and one eminent person of the
region who is familiar with the religious functions
of the temples in the area, which shall ensure that
the above directions are carried out in a time bound
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 38 of 62


manner of two months from the date of formation of
the Committee.
v. The temple management committees, being a
statutory and primary stakeholder, will duly interact
with the State, which in mutual consultation will
evolve suitable schemes for development of the
heritage and tourist infrastructure in the Braj area
in strict accordance with the provisions of the U.P.
Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015.”

Discussion and Analysis
13. We have given our careful consideration to the
submissions made on both sides of the bar, and by the
intervenors. We have perused the materials placed before us,
including the several reports as to the pending litigations across
temples in the region. Mathura is a place where Lord Krishna (an
Avatar of Lord Vishnu) is said to have been born over 5000 years
ago in a prison cell because his parents were held captive by King
Kansa. Vrindavan, which is a few kilometres away from
Mathura, is a pilgrimage destination of immense and spiritual
significance. Lord Krishna spent his early years in Vrindavan and
where he performed the Raas Leela with Gopis , lifted the
Govardhan Parbat and his flute was heard by everyone in
Vrindavan. Bhagwat Puran and Mahabharata describes Lord
Krishna's divine acts and teachings.
14. In Vrindavan and Mathura, there are large numbers of
temples of Vaishnav Sampradayas, including the Banke Bihari Ji
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 39 of 62


temple, Shree Krishna Janam Bhoomi, Prem Mandir, Radha
Raman temple, Govindji temple and the list is long and all the
temples are of great significance.
15. Mathura and Vrindavan, being historical cities, have found
their descriptions in most of the religious scriptures and are
visited by millions of people every year. There is a great rush of
pilgrims to visit the historical temples and to seek blessings of
Lord Krishna and other deities. Mathura and Vrindavan both,
keeping in view of the influx of devotees, need wider roads,
parking spaces, Dharamshalas, hospitals and other public
amenities. The Trust formed by the State of Uttar
Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is already doing a great job for the
development of Mathura and Vrindavan corridor, and the Act
enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature, i.e. The Uttar Pradesh
Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015, provides for
development of both the cities keeping in view their historic
importance. The development of Mathura and Vrindavan cannot
be done by parties individually, let it be the various trusts, which
are managing the temples, or even by the Government. It has to
be a collective effort by the Government, Trusts, people of
Mathura and Vrindavan and other agencies in order to achieve a
peaceful and spiritual journey for all pilgrims visiting these holy
sites. The Yamuna river which is considered a Goddess in
Hinduism and revered as sister of Yama, the God of death, also
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 40 of 62


requires attention as Yamuna Ji is believed to be purifying and a
dip in its water is said to cleanse one’s sins. The Kashi Ghat and
Vishram Ghat requires to be expanded and renovated. Similarly,
the lake of flowers i.e. Kusum Sarovar which is located near
Govardhan Parbat also requires beautification. In short, there is a
great work which has to be done to ensure that the pilgrims going
to Mathura and Vrindavan are able to seek blessings of Lord
Krishna and other Gods and Goddesses without any discomfort.
16. It is suffice to say that the buck does not stop at the issue
raised in the present SLP relating to the eligibility of a receiver
for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura. The fact that the
Civil Suit has been pending for over 25 years, with only
receiver’s running the show, goes to show that the issue of
maladministration runs deep and wide. During the hearings, we
have been apprised by Intervenor/Respondent No. 4 that other
temples in the belt, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have
been facing severe administrative issues of crowd management
and it is being administered by a civil judge.
17. It pains this Court to take notice of the fact that the temple
was a site of an unfortunate stampede in 2022, caused due to the
lack of infrastructure that can support the large crowd of devotees
that visit the temple brimming with bhakti to offer their prayers.
We have been apprised of the fact that the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is currently seized of Public Interest
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 41 of 62


Litigation No. 1509 of 2022, which was filed seeking directions
in the aftermath of the stampede. While the High Court has
accepted the State of Uttar Pradesh’ scheme for the development
of the area around the temple, it has refused to permit the State
to utilize the Temple fund for the purpose of purchase of the land
around the Temple premises by observing that the said issue is
not yet adjudicated. The order dated 08.11.2013 passed in PIL
No. 1509 of 2022 reads as under:
“1. The instant writ (PIL) has been filed inter-
alia to ensure public order in and around the Temple
of "Shree Banke Behari" situate at Mohalla
Beharipura, Vrindavan, District Mathura. The
petition espouses the need for preparation of a
proper scheme for management and upkeep of Shri
Thakur Banke Behari Ji Maharaj Temple so that the
devotees can have easy access and proper darshan
of the deity Shri Thakur Ji. The petition asserts that
on normal days, the average number of devotees
who visit the Temple are about 40 to 50 thousands
per day and on weekends like Saturday, Sunday and
on some holidays, the number swells to 1.5 lacs to
2.5 lacs per day. On festival days and auspicious
days, the number of devotees visiting the Temple for
Darshan of Thakur Ji is about 5 lacs per day. The
approach roads to the Banke Behari Temple are
very narrow, congested and incapable of
accommodating large crowds and facilitate free
movement. The narrow lanes have been encroached
upon and unauthorized constructions including
guest houses, shops selling Bhog for Thakur Ji,
Vastra and other items for Thakur Ji have
mushroomed hampering the free movement of the
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 42 of 62


devotees, who comprise of young and old as also
children. The gatherings are unmanageable and
untoward incident sometimes leading to death
occur often.
2. The writ (PIL) refers to a Scheme of
Management framed under the decree drawn
consequent to the judgment dated 31.3.1939
rendered in Original Suit No. 156 of 1938. The suit
was instituted amongst Goswamis who perform
Sevas of the deity classified as Raj Bhog, Shayan
Bhog and Shringar Bhog. The writ (PIL) asserts
that the Scheme of Management under the decree
provides for setting up of a Committee of
Management which shall perform the
administrative functions, however, the Committee of
Management as conceived under the decree is not
functioning and the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Munsif,
Mathura is acting in the capacity of receiver and
managing the administrative affairs of the Temple.
3. The writ (PIL) further asserts that on account
of huge gathering of the devotees for Darshan there
is law and order problems and numerous FIRs have
been registered for theft, loot and loss of property.
Details of cases have been mentioned in the
petition. Instances of deaths of the devotees on
account of huge gathering of crowd have been
highlighted in the petition. It is vehemently
submitted that the local administration which is
duty bound to manage the gathering and ensure that
proper walking corridors to approach the Temple
are created to facilitate the devotees to have
Darshan of the deity Shri Thakur Banke Behari Ji
Maharaj, has utterly failed in its obligation. In spite
of numerous mishappenings, no steps have been
taken by the District Administration or by the State
Government itself in this regard. Learned counsel
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 43 of 62


for the petitioner, in the above realm of the
circumstances, has prayed for entertaining the writ
(PIL) and issuance of the directions prayed for.
4. The writ (PIL) has been opposed by
Goswamis who are stated to perform the Sewa in the
Temple by raising all sorts of objections i.e. non-
joinder/mis-joinder of parties, material
concealment and lack of credentials and bona fides
of the petitioner, the writ (PIL) being collusive and
filed for personal interest, PIL under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 369 of 2004 filed for similar relief having been
dismissed reliefs claimed barred under Order 23
Rule 3-A CPC and violative of the Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India besides being violative of
the provisions of the Religious Endowment Act,
1863 and the Places of Worship Act, 1981, the
Temple being a private Temple, no interference can
be claimed in respect of its management and
upkeep.
5. The State Government has filed an
application supported by an affidavit of the Special
Secretary, Religious Affairs Department,
Government of U.P., Lucknow highlighting the
untoward incident that occurred on 20.8.2022
resulting in the death of two devotees in a stampede
inside the Temple which incident was ordered to be
inquired by an Inquiry Committee headed by Shri
Sulakhan Singh, former D.G.P., U.P. assisted by
Shri Gaurav Dayal, Commissioner, Aligarh
Division. The affidavit filed by the State
Government in substance brings out the need for
creation of better facilities for devotees, effective
management of Thakur Behari Ji Temple and proper
utilization of the Temple funds for resource creation.
The affidavit asserts that the State Government
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 44 of 62


intends to provide for social welfare of the general
public by creation of a Trust to manage the facilities
that are required to be established under the order
dated 20.12.2022 of this Court. The affidavit also
asserts that the public order would mandate
creation of new and upgraded facilities in and
around the temple inasmuch as, the buildings
surrounding the Temple area are in a dilapidated
condition which result in mishaps.
6. Several persons claiming themselves to be
Goswamis, priest (Shebait) of the Deity, Sevayats,
Sevadars or Sewadhikaris associated with the
affairs of the Temple and its management have filed
impleadment/intervention applications raising
objections to the writ (PIL) on similar grounds
enumerated here-in-before. All such applicants
have been permitted to intervene in the proceedings
by order dated
7. We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of the writ (PIL), learned
counsel for Goswamis as also learned Advocate
General along with the learned Addl. Advocate
General and the learned Chief Standing Counsel for
the State and have perused the records.
8. The Bankey Behari Temple, Vrindavan is
amongst the holiest, famous and pious Temples of
Lord Krishna in India. This Temple is stated to have
been constructed sometime in 1864 with the
contributions of Goswamis. Banke Behari Ji is
worshiped and looked after as a child. The deity is
also believed to be a combined form of Radha and
Krishna. The Temple holds immense spiritual
significance, offering a profound understanding of
the philosophy of Bhakti Yog. Devotees believe that
dedicating oneself to the path of devotion and
surrendering to the divine love of Banke Bihari Ji
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 45 of 62


leads to spiritual enlightenment and liberation. The
popularity of the Temple attracts large crowd of
devotees which most of time leads to untoward
incidents and even deaths of the devotees who come
to have a glimpse of their God. There exists eminent
and persistent need for crowd management both
outside the temple premises and inside as well.
9. From the order dated 31.8.2022, we find that
this Court had adjourned the matter as learned
State Counsel had sought time to place before the
Court the Scheme which the State proposed for
management of pilgrims in the Temple. The
subsequent order dated 18.10.2022 records that the
proposed Scheme of the State Government has been
brought on record by an affidavit sworn by Special
Secretary, Dharmarth Karya, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow dated 28.9.2022. Briefly, the Scheme
refers to development of Temple area as corridor,
with purchase of about 5 acres of land around the
Temple for facilitating Darshan and Puja by the
devotees. The Scheme records that there would be
no interference of any kind in the Puja- Archana or
Shringar carried out by the Goswamis and
whatever right they have shall be continued to be
enjoyed by them. The Scheme further mentions that
besides use of purchase of 5 acres of land around
the Temple, provisions for other facilities, such as
parking area and other public amenities shall be
provided for which the cost would be borne by the
State. The order dated 18.10.2022 further records
the factum that the Goswamis have expressed their
apprehension that the funds lying in the account of
the Deity in the Temple may be utilized for purchase
of the land of 5 acres around the Temple as proposed
by the State and strongly object to the same. They,
however, have expressed no objection in case the
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 46 of 62


land is acquired by the State on its own expenses.
However, ancient Temples in the vicinity of Bankey
Behari Ji Temple may be included in the Scheme
and preserved.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State in
order to demonstrate the viability of the proposed
Scheme displayed 3-D video presentation before
this Court and all other affected parties during the
course of the proceedings. The counsel, however,
submitted that the proposed Scheme is being
opposed by the Goswamis even for its
implementation outside the Temple premises. This
Court had required the parties to mediate the
dispute on at least two occasions, but the mediation
proceedings were not successful. The counsel has
asserted that the Scheme and the blue prints of the
maps/drawings etc., have been got prepared by
technical experts and are entirely viable, however,
it requires the co-operation of the Goswamis and
Temple management for its effective
implementation. The State Counsel also contends
that for the construction of the proposed corridor
the co-operation of the other persons occupying the
land around the Temple is also necessary.
11. Records further reveal that on the request of
the Goswamis who perform Sewa in the Temple, the
proposed Scheme by the State Government was got
examined by a retired Judge of this Court. The
report submitted by the learned retired Judge of this
Court is on record.
12. From the order dated 18.10.2022, we find
that the exercise for getting the Scheme, proposed
by the State Government examined by a retired
Judge of this Court, was with regard to Crowd
Management in the temple and surrounding areas.
Though objections have been filed against the said
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 47 of 62


report but the same relate mainly to the Crowd
Management within the temple premises.
13. From the arguments advanced before us by
the learned counsel appearing for the Goswamis, in
opposition to the writ (PIL), in substance, we find
that the opposition is with regard to interference in
management of crowd within the temple premises.
They also apprehend that the State Government
would interfere in the management of affairs of the
Temple.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the Goswamis
have clearly expressed that they would have no
objection to the proposal of the State Government
so far as the crowd management outside the Temple
premises is carried out. Their only apprehension is
that Temples in the vicinity and places of religious
significance may be preserved.
15. We are conscious of the issues of public
importance highlighted in the instant writ (PIL)
relating to the difficulties faced by the Devotees/
visitors to the Temple. We are also conscious of the
numerous untoward incidents leading to the deaths
of the Devotees young and old on account of crowd
mismanagement that have been occurring time and
again particularly, when significant religious
festivals such as Krishna Janamastami,
Rakshabandhan, Sharad Purnima etc. take place,
on which dates the crowd is stated to be not less
than five lacs per day. The Court is also conscious
of the fact that proper Darshan of the Deity is also
at the whims and fancies of the Sevayats. The
acrimony between the Sevayats belonging to the Raj
Bhog and the Shayan Bhog often leads to difficulties
being faced by the devotees in performance of their
religious pujas. We have no doubt in our minds that
proper management of the Temples, pilgrimage
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 48 of 62


centres religious places of great importance is a
matter of public interest. These places are of
undoubted, religious, social, historical and
architectural importance, representing cultural
heritage of our country. Millions of people visit
these places not only for tourism but also for
seeking inspiration for the righteous values and for
their well being. They also make huge offerings and
donations for advancement of such values.
16. The Apex Court while considering the
difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath
Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation
by the Sevaks of the Temple in the case of Mrinalini
Padhi versus Union of India reported in 2018 (7)
SCC 787 observed as under:-
"20. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors,
exploitative practices, deficiencies in the
management, maintenance of hygiene, proper
utilization of offerings and protection of assets may
require consideration with regard to all Shrines
throughout the India, irrespective of religion
practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that
this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and
there is need to look into this aspect by the Central
Government, apart from State Governments."
17. In the same judgment, the Apex Court in
Paragraph 30.9 observed that difficulties faced by
the visitors, deficiencies in management,
maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilization of
offerings and protection of assets with regard to
shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for
consideration not only for the State Government,
Central Government but also for Courts.
18. Then again, the Apex Court in the subsequent
decision in the case of Mrinalini Padhi versus
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 49 of 62


Union of India reported in 2019 (18) SCC 1 in
Paragraph 40.6 observed as under:-
"When there is a vast congregation of people, it
becomes the Government's duty to ensure welfare,
law and order, hygiene and provide proper
amenities and sanitation facilities. The State
Government is, therefore, directed to work out and
prepare a plan in this regard. The Temple
Administration is directed to coordinate with the
Government in this regard for providing shelter
place and facilities to the pilgrims."
19. From the records, we find that the State
Government has already submitted a detail
proposal with regard to immediate, short terms and
long term suggestions for better management of
temple and its surrounding areas. The immediate
suggestions include amongst others, the increase of
temple visitation time, online registration of
devotees with time slots, Darshan through digital
screens, creation of ramps and new barricading
inside the temple etc. Short term suggestions
include creation of trust to manage the the temple
property in the absence of any management in
place, increase in the space around the temple,
structural audit of temple etc. Long term
suggestions include amongst others development of
a large corridor for better crowd management with
various facilities for the devotees, expansion of lane
surrounding the temple, development of the Ghats
near the temple so that devotees can be diverted to
these ghats for crowd management etc. Since, the
immediate and short terms suggestions relate
mainly to the internal crowd management of the
temple, we at this stage, leave the same open for
further deliberations. However, as regards the long
term suggestions for better management of the area
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 50 of 62


around the temple i.e. constructions of corridor for
better crowd management with various facilities for
the devotees, we are of the opinion that the
restrictions of public order morality and heath as
enshrined under Article 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India would compel us to direct the
State Government to act in accordance with law for
providing letter facilities to the devotees in and
around the Temple premise. We further direct the
State Government to proceed with the
implementation of the Scheme and Plan submitted
before this Court, in accordance with law.
20. Human life cannot be put at stake just
because somebody has objection. In our opinion,
even the private Temples where devotees come for
Darshan, safety of human life is required to be
treated of utmost importance and the Government is
bound to make necessary arrangements. Under the
Constitution certain religious rights have been
protected by Article 25 and 26 but these
fundamental rights are not absolute and are subject
to maintenance of public order. These restrictions
find importance and have been specifically
mentioned in Articles 25 and 26. Furthermore, no
religious community denomination can claim that
suggestion in the interest of public order, as per
Article 25 and 26 can be destructive of their
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in Gulam
Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1984
(1) SCC 81 has reiterated as above.
21. We are not in agreement with the argument of
the State Counsel that for construction of the
Corridor, the funds deposited in the Bank belonging
to the Deity may be permitted to be utilized. This
amount of Rs.262.50 Crores lying in the Bank, shall
remain untouched particularly as we have not
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 51 of 62


adjudicated the inter se rights of the State viz a viz
the Sevayats (Goswami Samaj) and the Government
is free to utilize its own money for the secular
activity of facilitating public interests.
22. Considering the public importance
highlighted in the writ (PIL) coupled with the fact
that the State Government is obligated to take steps
to ensure public order in and around the Temple and
also to ensure the health and safety of the public at
large, taking note of the fact that Darshan of the
Devotees should not be hampered in any manner at
this stage, we direct as under:-
i) The State Government to proceed with the
implementation of plans and scheme submitted to
this Court, which the Court finds appropriate and
necessary in the interest of justice. We leave it open
for the State Government to take whatever steps it
deems appropriate, after consultation with the
technical experts in the field, for implementing the
Scheme. The State Government is also free to take
appropriate steps for removing the encroachment
over the approach roads (galis) to the Temple.
ii) The State Government, after implementation of
the Scheme, is expected to ensure that no further
obstructions/encroachment be allowed to come up
on the approach roads to the Temple. In the event
any such offending act is undertaken by anyone, the
Government is free to take action against such
erring persons in accordance with law.
iii) We make it clear that the Darshan of the
devotees shall not be hampered in any manner,
except for the implementation of the Scheme, during
which appropriate alternative arrangements shall
be made. The present Management along with all
the stakeholders are directed to ensure that the
Darshan of the devotees are not restricted in any
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 52 of 62


manner and by anyone. The District Authorities are
also directed to ensure strict compliance of the
above directions and any act of violation shall be
reported to this Court.
23. We place on record our appreciation for the
stand taken by the Goswami Samaj in extending
their wholehearted support in implementing the
Scheme for the benefit of devotees and members of
the general public.
24. While passing this order, we are not touching
the respective rights of the parties and such
questions are left open for consideration.
25. List this case on 31st January, 2024.”

18. In Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
(2022) 11 SCC 1 , or commonly known as the ‘ Central Vista
case’ , this Court decided a matter in larger public interest even
though a separate court was seized of the same under Article 142
of the Constitution. This Court observed:
“ 518. No doubt, by way of the exclusive jurisdiction
clause in Section 29, the jurisdiction of civil Courts
is barred on these subject matters, but there is no
impact whatsoever on the jurisdiction of this Court,
being a Court of record and bestowed with original
and appellate jurisdiction including superior
powers to do complete justice under Article 142 in
special circumstances. In other words, the
jurisdiction of this Court is not controlled or guided
by the form of jurisdiction vested in NGT in terms of
the 2010 Act. The considerations before this Court
can be diverse and expansive and the moment a lis
comes before this Court, the subject matter comes
out of the ambit of limited statutory consideration
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 53 of 62


and falls in the realm of plenary constitutional
consideration - wherein the duty of the Court is to
do complete justice between the parties before it and
in public interest jurisdiction to a class of persons.
…
574. […] In any case, once a cause reaches this
Court and of this nature, the fundamental concern
of the Court is and must be not only of doing
substantial and complete justice, but also
expeditious resolution of all aspects in larger public
interest. This we must do within the constitutional
bounds. Judicial activism to this limited extent is
certainly permissible, in national interest. In doing
so, the Court would not merely exercise its power
under Article 139A while transferring the case
before itself, rather, the underlying principle at play
is the duty of this Court to do complete justice as
envisaged under Article 142 and to obviate
possibility of project of national importance being
stuck, embroiled and delayed due to engagement of
the project proponent before multiple legal
forums/proceedings.
…
578. The character of a public interest proceeding
is necessarily non-adversarial in nature and it is not
a matter of two individuals fighting against each
other at all possible forums. […]
579. The expression “complete justice” does not
contemplate a narrow view of doing justice to the
petitioners or the respondents. Rather, the principle
entails looking at the parties, their respective
positions and the subject matter/cause before it as a
whole. The Court needs to be even more vigilant and
proactive in its pursuit of complete justice when the
subject matter involves an exercise of power in rem
and considerations of public interest traverse
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 54 of 62


beyond the immediate expectations of the parties
before the Court. It is not a case where parties have
approached the Court for the vindication of
personal rights, as already noted above, and the
nature of subject matter is entirely different .”

19. As this Court is in sesin of the cause qua the administration
and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest to
decide the issue raised by Respondent No. 4/State of Uttar
Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself. Respondent No. 4 has
placed on record the proposed scheme for development for the
Temple. Upon a perusal of the same and the consequent
assessments, it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around
the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing
parking lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security
check posts and other amenities. As observed by the High Court
vide order dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the
temple and the consequent development project is crucial to
ensure the safety of the pilgrims.
20. The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to incur costs of
more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor. However, they
propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing the land in
question; which was denied by the High Court vide order dated
08.11.2023. We permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to implement
the Scheme in its entirety. The Banke Bihari Ji Trust is having
fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple. In the considered
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 55 of 62


opinion of this Court, the State Government is permitted to utilize
the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire the land
proposed. However, the land acquired for the purposes of
development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name of
the Deity/Trust. The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High
Court of Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation deserves to be
modified to the aforesaid extent and it is modified accordingly.
21. We now shift our attention to the issue arising out of the
present SLP in relation to the appointment of receivers.
Accordingly, Order XL Rule 1 is reproduced here below:
“ 1: Appointment of receivers.--
(1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and
convenient the Court may by order--
(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether
before or after decree;
(b) remove any person from the possession or
custody of the property;
(c) commit the same to the possession, custody or
management of the receiver, and
(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to
bringing and defending suits and for the realization,
management, protection, preservation and
improvement of the property, the collection of the
rents and profits thereof, the application and
disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution
of documents as the owner himself has, or such of
those powers as the Court thinks fit.
(2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to
remove from the possession or custody of property
any person whom any party to the suit has not a
present right so to remove.”
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 56 of 62



22. At this juncture, it is appropriate to reproduce the findings
of the High Court which have been assailed before us by the
Appellant:
“1. Receivership in the temple town of Mathura has
become the new norm. Most of the famous and
ancient temples are in the grip of legal battle,
restraining the temple trust, its Shebait and the
Committee to manage its affairs and are being run
by persons appointed by the Court as Receivers
under Order XL of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’).
2. Out of the list of 197 temples as provided by
District Judge, Mathura on 23.05.2024, there are
civil litigations pending of these temples situated at
Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana,
Maath etc. The litigation ranges from the year 1923
till the year 2024. In these famous temples of
Vrindavan, Govardhan and Barasana, practising
advocates of Mathura Court have been appointed
Receivers. The interest of Receiver lies in keeping
the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude
the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple
administration vest in the hands of Receiver. Most
of the litigation is in respect of management of
temples and appointment of Receivers.
3. A practising lawyer cannot devote sufficient time
for the administration and management of a temple,
especially of Vrindavan and Goverdhan, which
needs skill in the temple management along with full
devotion and dedication. It has become a symbol of
status in the city of Mathura.
[…]
22. The discretion given to the Court has to be
exercised with great care and caution. It cannot in
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 57 of 62


a routine manner appoint Receiver and continue the
management of the temple/trust through such
appointments. Every endeavour should be there to
get the dispute decided at the earliest without
prolonging it and running the entire show through
the Receivers.
23. The present case is an example where the
original suit was filed in the year 1999 claiming
relief of permanent injunction restraining
defendants from interfering in management and
running of the temple. The suit is pending for last
25 years, and report of District Judge reveals that
only plaintiff evidence has taken place. No effort
has been made by court concerned to expedite the
matter and decide it. Only application for
appointment of Receiver has been considered on
number of occasions and the temple trust is being
run through Receivers. The entire dispute hinges
around the appointment of Receiver. Earlier this
Court in the year 2021 had set aside the order of
court below appointing an advocate as Receiver
and remanded back the matter for consideration
afresh.
24. The officer against whom contempt has been
alleged has now proceeded to appoint a Seven
Member Committee of Receivers which includes
three advocates. The order dated 28.03.2023
frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C.
25. In the garb of provisions of Order XL Rule 1
C.P.C., the Courts cannot prolong litigation and run
a temple/trust or manage any suit property through
Receiver without making any effort to decide the lis.
25 long years have elapsed and only plaintiff
evidence has taken place. Successive litigations
have come to this Court only questioning the very
legality of appointment of Receiver. The suit is
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 58 of 62


proceeding at snail pace. There is no effort either
on the part of the court below or the Receiver who
has been appointed to get the suit decided. Rule 1(d)
of Order XL clearly provides that all powers, such
as, bringing and defending suits and for realisation,
management, protection, preservation and
improvement of the property, collection of rents and
profits thereto, the application and disposal of such
rents and profits and the execution of documents are
all conferred upon the Receiver.
26. It appears that the Receiver appointed by the
Court made no effort to get the suit decided. His
only interest is to continue as a Receiver and control
the entire administration of the temple. The instant
contempt application at the behest of Devendra
Kumar Sharma clearly reveals that he has only
moved an impleadment application in the suit of
1999 to be impleaded as a party and has applied to
be appointed as a Receiver which has not been
considered by court below.
[…]
28. The list of eight temples placed by District Judge
demonstrates that, Radha Vallabh Mandir,
Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo;
Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul;
Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;
Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir
Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under the
grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by
practising advocates of Mathura.
29. Now, time has come when all these temples
should be freed from the clutches of practising
advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should
make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a
Receiver who is connected with the management of
a temple and has some religious leaning towards the
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 59 of 62


deity. He should also be well versed with the Vedas
and Shastras. Advocates and people from district
administration should be kept away from the
management and control of these ancient temples.
Effort should be made for disposing of the suit,
involving temple disputes at the earliest and matter
should not be lingered for decades.
[…]
31. The present case which was filed on 10.05.1999
till date has not been decided despite 25 years
having elapsed. The court below is requested to
expedite the matter and proceed to decide the same
without wasting any time in appointment of
Receiver and continuing the management through
them. The order dated 28.03.2023 passed by Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Mathura appointing a
Seven Member Committee is liable to be set aside
as it is not based on any sound principle of law. The
court below is expected to comply the order passed
by writ Court on 23.11.2021 in Matters under
Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021 and decide the
application for Receiver in consonance with
provisions of Order XL Rule 1 making every effort
keeping away the advocates from the said
responsibility.
32. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court requests the District Judge,
Mathura to take personal pain and inform his
officers about this order and also make every
endeavour to conclude the civil disputes regarding
temples and trusts of District-Mathura as
expeditiously as possible.
33. Prolonging the litigation is only creating further
disputes in the temples and leading to indirect
involvement of practising advocates and district
administration in the temples, which is not in the
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 60 of 62


interest of the people having faith in Hindu
religion.”

23. It is an established fact that the historical temples are old
structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support,
and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples,
Receivers have been appointed for decades now which was
originally intended to be a stop-gap temporary measure. It is
unfortunate that while appointing Receivers, the concerned
Courts are not keeping in mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the
two most sacred places for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore,
persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas should be appointed as
Receivers. This will give true meaning to the High Court’s
directions pertaining to persons who are having adequate
administrative experience, historical, religious, social
background and not Advocates to be appointed as Receivers.
24. Accordingly, the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the
High Court of Allahabad in PIL No. 1509 of 2022 is modified to
the extent that the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is
permitted to utilise the temple fund in order to purchase the land
around the Temple as per the Scheme proposed, provided that the
land so acquired shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust. Further,
the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed to comply
with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint a
Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience,
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 61 of 62


historical, religious and social background preferably belonging
to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. The present appeal, along with the
IAs, are disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
25. Parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if
any, shall stand disposed of.


……………………………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]






……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi
May 15, 2025
SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 62 of 62