Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 30.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5140 of 2023 and the order dated 10.05.2024 rejecting the appellant’s recall application.
The appellant was managing the affairs of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, which managed the temple known as Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, Aligarh. A dispute existed regarding the management of the temple, with various committees claiming control. Original Suit No. 623 of 2012 concerning the dispute was pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh. An application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant had initially been rejected, but the Additional District Judge, Aligarh, by order dated 06.04.2019, allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the injunction application, and directed the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the application.
Separately, Respondent No. 5, Manju Devi, the Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Hardaspur, sought implementation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order dated 18.09.2007, under which the temple was directed to be handed over to the Gram Sabha. During those proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted a report dated 07.02.2023 stating that no proceedings could be undertaken because the dispute was already pending before the competent civil court. On the basis of that report, the District Magistrate did not proceed further.
Respondent No. 5 thereafter filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. By order dated 30.05.2023, the High Court directed the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to comply with the order dated 18.09.2007, effectively directing that possession of the temple premises be handed over to the respondents.
The appellant contended that the High Court had passed the order without granting an opportunity of hearing. After withdrawing an earlier Special Leave Petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies, the appellant filed a recall application before the High Court, which was rejected on 10.05.2024, leading to the present appeals.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that the respondents had obtained the High Court’s order by suppressing the Additional District Judge’s order and the Tehsildar/SDM’s report and that the recall application had been rejected without proper consideration. The respondents relied upon Sections 34 and 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, contending that management of public property vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the civil court’s order did not bind the Gram Sabha as it was not a party to the suit.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had been informed about the interim order passed by the competent civil court but had merely observed that the submission did not appeal to logic without referring to the Additional District Judge’s order. The Supreme Court held that, in these circumstances, the least expected of the High Court was to refer to that order. It also noted that the appellant had specifically objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it had been filed by the Gram Pradhan without compliance with paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual, but the High Court rejected the objection by observing that it was not bound by the Manual and that the petition had been filed in the individual’s capacity and in the interest of the Gram Sabha.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was totally untenable. It observed that where the law requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. It held that if proceedings on behalf of the Gram Sabha were required to be instituted only pursuant to a resolution of the Gram Sabha, the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 5 without such a resolution was not maintainable at the instance of the Gram Sabha. It further observed that if the High Court intended to treat the matter as a public interest litigation filed by Respondent No. 5 in her individual capacity, it ought to have considered whether a public interest litigation should have been entertained in a private dispute.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and allowed the appeals. It directed the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh, to dispose of Original Suit No. 623 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within six months. The Supreme Court also directed the appellant to implead the Gram Sabha as a defendant in the suit so that all issues could be decided effectively. It further directed that the status quo order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge would continue to operate until the civil suit is decided.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
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).
4. These appeals challenge the order dated 30th May, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5140 of 2023 and the order dated 10th May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2023.
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 Additional District Judge, Aligarh, vide order dated 6th 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.
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 order dated 30th May, 2023 directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e. the District Magistrate, Aligarh and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aligarh to comply with the order dated 18th 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 the appellant herein, the appellant herein approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (c) …@ Diary No.30082 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 11th 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 Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10th 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 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 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 Additional District Judge vide order dated 6th 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 the learned Additional District Judge dated 6th April, 2019, directing the parties to maintain status quo, shall continue to operate.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
