Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 362
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.
@ SLP(CRL) NOS.13258-13259/2024
SHRI KHERESHWAR MAHADEV VA DAUJI MAHARAJ
SAMITI, ALIGARH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are taken up for hearing.
3. Heard Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant(s) and Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent(s).
th
4. These appeals challenge the order dated 30 May, 2023
passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5140 of 2023 and the order
th
dated 10 May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the
Signature Not Verified
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Recall Application
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.18
17:37:24 IST
Reason:
No.5 of 2023.
1
5. It further appears that the appellant is managing the
affairs of the appellant-temple known as Shri Khereshwar
Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, Aligarh.
6. It appears that there is a dispute with regard to the
management of the said temple with various committees urging
for control. With regard to the said dispute Original Suit
No.623 of 2012 was pending before the learned Additional
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh. In the said suit, an
application for temporary injunction was filed by the
appellant herein and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved
thereby the appellant herein filed an appeal before the
learned Additional District Judge, Aligarh. The learned
th
Additional District Judge, Aligarh, vide order dated 6
April, 2019 passed the following order:-
“The Misc. Civil Appeal No.51 of 2014 filed by
the appellant Khereshwar Mahadev & Dauji Maharaj
through President Shri Satya Pal Singh & Anr., is
allowed. The order dated 27.03.2014 passed by
Lower Court on 7-C application in Original Suit
No.623 of 2012 Khareshwar Mahadev & Dauji Maharaj
Samiti Vs. Kaereshwar Dham Vikas Samiti is set-
aside. The file is sent to the Ld. Lower Court
for the purpose that if any party intends to bring
on record any documentary evidence which may be
necessary for disposal of this matter, then while
disposing of the same, the Ld. Lower Court would
dispose of 7-C application afresh if possible
within a period of 4 months. Both the parties in
the light of order dated 25.04.2014 shall maintain
Status Quo till disposal of 7-C application.
Parties are directed to appear before the Ld.
2
Lower Court on 12.04.2019.”
7. It further appears that the Respondent No.5/Manju Devi
the Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Hardaspur had filed an
application before the District Magistrate, Aligarh for
implementation of the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lodha by which the temple was
directed to be given in favour of the Gaon Sabha, Hardaspur.
In the said proceedings, a report was called for from the
Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Aligarh. The Sub-Divisinal
Magistrate, Aligarh submitted his report on 07.02.2023,
which reads thus:-
“The suit is under consideration in the court.
No proceeding is possible to be conducted because
presently a suit in Original Suit No.372/12 titled
Satyapal v. State is under consideration/pending
in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge,
(Senior Division), Aligarh in relation to the
aforementioned matter.”
8. It appears that on the basis of the report, the District
Magistrate did not find it appropriate to proceed further.
In these circumstances, a writ petition came to be filed by
Respondent No.5/Manju Devi. In the said writ petition, the
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad passed the
th
order dated 30 May, 2023 directing the Respondent Nos.2 and
3, i.e. the District Magistrate, Aligarh and Sub Divisional
th
Magistrate, Aligarh to comply with the order dated 18
September, 2007. In effect, it directed that the possession
of the temple premises to handed over to the respondent(s).
Since it was the contention of the appellant that the said
order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to
3
the appellant herein, the appellant herein approached this
Court by way of Special Leave Petition (c) ...@ Diary
th
No.30082 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 11 August,
2023 permitted the petitions(s) to be withdrawn with liberty
to take such steps as are permissible in law. Accordingly,
a recall application came to be filed by the appellant
herein and the same came to be rejected by the Division
th
Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10 May, 2024.
This is how the appellant herein has approached this Court.
9. Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant, submits that the respondent(s) herein by
suppressing the orders passed by the learned Additional
District Judge and the report of the Tehsildar have obtained
the impugned order. He submits that though a recall
application, in view of the liberty granted by this Court,
was filed before the Division Bench, even without
considering the same, the Division Bench has rejected the
same.
10. Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent(s) submits that as per Sections 34 and 35 of the
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the said
Act’), the management of all the public properties within
the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat vests and belongs to the
Gram Panchayat. He further submits that perusal of sub-
section (2) of Section 34 of the said Act would reveal that
all markets and fair or such portion thereof as are held
upon public land shall be managed and regulated by the Gram
Panchayat.
11. He further submits that the order of the Civil Court
does not bind the Gram Sabha, inasmuch as the Gram Sabha was
not made a party to the said suit.
12. A perusal of the impugned order(s) would reveal that
4
though it was specifically submitted on behalf of the
appellant herein before the High Court that an interim
injunction order had been passed by the competent Court in a
suit which was pending, the Court cursorily observed that
the submission does not appeal to logic because two suits by
one committee would clearly not lie. In these
circumstances, the least that was expected of the Division
Bench of the High Court was a reference to the order passed
by the Additional District Judge.
13. It is also to be noted that the appellant had raised a
specific objection before the High Court that the petitioner
before the High Court (Respondent No.5 herein) was a gram
pradhan and that the petition had been filed without
compliance of paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual.
However, again the Division Bench cursorily observed that
the writ court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction
is not unnecessarily bound by the mandate of paragraph 128
of the Gram Sabha Manual. It further goes on to observe
that even otherwise the petition had been filed in
individual capacity and in the interest of the Gram Sabha.
Observing this, the Division Bench rejected the objection
regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
14. We find that the approach of the High Court is totally
untenable. When the appellant herein had specifically
brought to the notice of the High Court, the order passed by
the competent civil court in its appellate jurisdiction and
also the report of the Tehsildar/SDM regarding non-exercise
of the jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C in view
of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, the
least that was expected of the High Court was to at least
refer to it.
15. Apart from that it is a settled law that when a law
5
requires a particular thing to be done in a particular
manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at
all. When a legal proceeding to be filed by the Gram Sabha
is to be filed only on the resolution of the Gram Sabha, the
petition at the instance of Respondent No.5/Manju Devi,
without there being a resolution of the Gram Sabha was not
tenable at the instance of the Gram Sabha. If the High
Court wanted to treat the same as a public interest
litigation at the instance of Respondent No.5/Manju Devi in
her individual capacity then the High Court ought to have
taken into consideration as to whether the public interest
litigation should have been entertained in a private lis or
not.
16. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow
these appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside
and the appeals are allowed.
17. In pursuance to the directions issued by the learned
th
Additional District Judge vide order dated 6 April, 2019,
we direct the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aligarh to dispose of Original Suit No.623 of 2012 as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of
six months from today.
18. We further direct the appellant herein to implead the
Gram Sabha as party defendant in the said suit so that all
questions between all the parties can be decided by the
Civil Court in an effective manner.
19. Till the decision of the civil suit, the order passed by
th
the learned Additional District Judge dated 6 April, 2019,
directing the parties to maintain status quo, shall continue
to operate.
6
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 05, 2025
7
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.
@ SLP(CRL) NOS.13258-13259/2024
SHRI KHERESHWAR MAHADEV VA DAUJI MAHARAJ
SAMITI, ALIGARH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are taken up for hearing.
3. Heard Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant(s) and Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent(s).
th
4. These appeals challenge the order dated 30 May, 2023
passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5140 of 2023 and the order
th
dated 10 May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the
Signature Not Verified
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Recall Application
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.18
17:37:24 IST
Reason:
No.5 of 2023.
1
5. It further appears that the appellant is managing the
affairs of the appellant-temple known as Shri Khereshwar
Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, Aligarh.
6. It appears that there is a dispute with regard to the
management of the said temple with various committees urging
for control. With regard to the said dispute Original Suit
No.623 of 2012 was pending before the learned Additional
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh. In the said suit, an
application for temporary injunction was filed by the
appellant herein and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved
thereby the appellant herein filed an appeal before the
learned Additional District Judge, Aligarh. The learned
th
Additional District Judge, Aligarh, vide order dated 6
April, 2019 passed the following order:-
“The Misc. Civil Appeal No.51 of 2014 filed by
the appellant Khereshwar Mahadev & Dauji Maharaj
through President Shri Satya Pal Singh & Anr., is
allowed. The order dated 27.03.2014 passed by
Lower Court on 7-C application in Original Suit
No.623 of 2012 Khareshwar Mahadev & Dauji Maharaj
Samiti Vs. Kaereshwar Dham Vikas Samiti is set-
aside. The file is sent to the Ld. Lower Court
for the purpose that if any party intends to bring
on record any documentary evidence which may be
necessary for disposal of this matter, then while
disposing of the same, the Ld. Lower Court would
dispose of 7-C application afresh if possible
within a period of 4 months. Both the parties in
the light of order dated 25.04.2014 shall maintain
Status Quo till disposal of 7-C application.
Parties are directed to appear before the Ld.
2
Lower Court on 12.04.2019.”
7. It further appears that the Respondent No.5/Manju Devi
the Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Hardaspur had filed an
application before the District Magistrate, Aligarh for
implementation of the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lodha by which the temple was
directed to be given in favour of the Gaon Sabha, Hardaspur.
In the said proceedings, a report was called for from the
Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Aligarh. The Sub-Divisinal
Magistrate, Aligarh submitted his report on 07.02.2023,
which reads thus:-
“The suit is under consideration in the court.
No proceeding is possible to be conducted because
presently a suit in Original Suit No.372/12 titled
Satyapal v. State is under consideration/pending
in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge,
(Senior Division), Aligarh in relation to the
aforementioned matter.”
8. It appears that on the basis of the report, the District
Magistrate did not find it appropriate to proceed further.
In these circumstances, a writ petition came to be filed by
Respondent No.5/Manju Devi. In the said writ petition, the
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad passed the
th
order dated 30 May, 2023 directing the Respondent Nos.2 and
3, i.e. the District Magistrate, Aligarh and Sub Divisional
th
Magistrate, Aligarh to comply with the order dated 18
September, 2007. In effect, it directed that the possession
of the temple premises to handed over to the respondent(s).
Since it was the contention of the appellant that the said
order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to
3
the appellant herein, the appellant herein approached this
Court by way of Special Leave Petition (c) ...@ Diary
th
No.30082 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 11 August,
2023 permitted the petitions(s) to be withdrawn with liberty
to take such steps as are permissible in law. Accordingly,
a recall application came to be filed by the appellant
herein and the same came to be rejected by the Division
th
Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10 May, 2024.
This is how the appellant herein has approached this Court.
9. Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant, submits that the respondent(s) herein by
suppressing the orders passed by the learned Additional
District Judge and the report of the Tehsildar have obtained
the impugned order. He submits that though a recall
application, in view of the liberty granted by this Court,
was filed before the Division Bench, even without
considering the same, the Division Bench has rejected the
same.
10. Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent(s) submits that as per Sections 34 and 35 of the
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the said
Act’), the management of all the public properties within
the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat vests and belongs to the
Gram Panchayat. He further submits that perusal of sub-
section (2) of Section 34 of the said Act would reveal that
all markets and fair or such portion thereof as are held
upon public land shall be managed and regulated by the Gram
Panchayat.
11. He further submits that the order of the Civil Court
does not bind the Gram Sabha, inasmuch as the Gram Sabha was
not made a party to the said suit.
12. A perusal of the impugned order(s) would reveal that
4
though it was specifically submitted on behalf of the
appellant herein before the High Court that an interim
injunction order had been passed by the competent Court in a
suit which was pending, the Court cursorily observed that
the submission does not appeal to logic because two suits by
one committee would clearly not lie. In these
circumstances, the least that was expected of the Division
Bench of the High Court was a reference to the order passed
by the Additional District Judge.
13. It is also to be noted that the appellant had raised a
specific objection before the High Court that the petitioner
before the High Court (Respondent No.5 herein) was a gram
pradhan and that the petition had been filed without
compliance of paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual.
However, again the Division Bench cursorily observed that
the writ court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction
is not unnecessarily bound by the mandate of paragraph 128
of the Gram Sabha Manual. It further goes on to observe
that even otherwise the petition had been filed in
individual capacity and in the interest of the Gram Sabha.
Observing this, the Division Bench rejected the objection
regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
14. We find that the approach of the High Court is totally
untenable. When the appellant herein had specifically
brought to the notice of the High Court, the order passed by
the competent civil court in its appellate jurisdiction and
also the report of the Tehsildar/SDM regarding non-exercise
of the jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C in view
of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, the
least that was expected of the High Court was to at least
refer to it.
15. Apart from that it is a settled law that when a law
5
requires a particular thing to be done in a particular
manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at
all. When a legal proceeding to be filed by the Gram Sabha
is to be filed only on the resolution of the Gram Sabha, the
petition at the instance of Respondent No.5/Manju Devi,
without there being a resolution of the Gram Sabha was not
tenable at the instance of the Gram Sabha. If the High
Court wanted to treat the same as a public interest
litigation at the instance of Respondent No.5/Manju Devi in
her individual capacity then the High Court ought to have
taken into consideration as to whether the public interest
litigation should have been entertained in a private lis or
not.
16. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow
these appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside
and the appeals are allowed.
17. In pursuance to the directions issued by the learned
th
Additional District Judge vide order dated 6 April, 2019,
we direct the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aligarh to dispose of Original Suit No.623 of 2012 as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of
six months from today.
18. We further direct the appellant herein to implead the
Gram Sabha as party defendant in the said suit so that all
questions between all the parties can be decided by the
Civil Court in an effective manner.
19. Till the decision of the civil suit, the order passed by
th
the learned Additional District Judge dated 6 April, 2019,
directing the parties to maintain status quo, shall continue
to operate.
6
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 05, 2025
7