LexISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA versus DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2014 : 2025 INSC 700 Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025) 15 May 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples facing severe administrative issues of crowd management. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XL, R.1 – Appointment of Receiver –Temples – Mathura Region – Temples in grip of legal battles – Appointment of advocates as receivers – A stop-gap measure – The instant suit pending for 25 years – Temple trust running through receivers – No effort to conclude the civil proceedings – The High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2024 held that 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 – Correctness: Held: 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 * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2015 Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Receivers – 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, historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. [Paras 23, 24] Public Interest Litigation – Temple Administration – Administrative issues – Maladministration – Intervenor/ Respondent no. 4 apprised 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: Held: 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 – 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 – This Court permits 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 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. [Paras 19 and 20] 2016 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M. George Ravishekara
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.