Supreme Court of India
ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMAversusDEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 700
- Decided
- 15 May 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
The Court held that the appointment of a receiver must be made with due regard to administrative experience, religious affiliation and the public interest, and that the High Court’s direction to prefer a Vaishnav candidate is permissible, while allowing the State to use temple funds for land acquisition provided the land is held in the name of the deity.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave Petition filed by Ishwar Chanda Sharma challenging a High Court order that directed the appointment of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple in Mathura with a preference for a person from the Vaishnav Sampradaya rather than a practising advocate. The Court examined the long‑standing litigation (over 25 years) concerning the temple’s management, the widespread practice of appointing advocates as receivers, and the resulting administrative stagnation. It considered the statutory framework under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the constitutional principles of equality, religious freedom, and public interest. The Court held that while the appointment of a receiver is permissible, the discretion must be exercised carefully and should favour individuals with appropriate religious and administrative background, and it modified the High Court’s order to allow the State to use temple funds for land acquisition provided the land is held in the name of the deity. The Court also directed the trial court to appoint a suitable receiver and issued directions for expediting the pending temple disputes.
Issues considered
- The eligibility criteria for appointing a receiver for a temple under Order XL Rule 1 of the CPC
- Whether practising advocates can be appointed as receivers of religious trusts
- Whether the High Court's direction to prefer a person from the Vaishnav Sampradaya violates Article 14 of the Constitution
- The propriety of using temple funds for land acquisition and development of a temple corridor
- The need for expeditious resolution of long‑pending temple litigation and crowd‑management concerns
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XL Rule 1
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 25, s. Article 26
- Societies Registration Act
- Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015
Headnote
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 – – 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 –
Subjects
Appointment of ReceiverTemplesMathura RegionTemples in grip of legal battlesAppointment of advocates as receiversA stop-gap measurePersons from Vaishnav SampradayasAdministrative experience, historical, religious, social backgroundPublic Interest LitigationTemple AdministrationAdministrative issuesMaladministrationCrowd managementDevelopment of corridorAcquisition of land from temple funds
Judgment
[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 Ravishekaran & Ors.
[2014] 4 SCR 27 : (2014) 3 SCC 373; Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of
India [2019] 16 SCR 811 : (2018) 7 SCC 785; Sri Adi Visheshwara
of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. [1997] 2 SCR 1086 : (1997) 4 SCC 606; Rajeev
Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. [2021] 15 SCR 283 :
(2022) 11 SCC 1; DR Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. [2014] 1 SCR 308 : (2014) 5 SCC 75 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Societies
Registration Act.
List of Keywords
Appointment of Receiver; Temples; Mathura Region; Temples
in grip of legal battles; Appointment of advocates as receivers;
A stop-gap measure; Persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas;
Administrative experience, historical, religious, social background;
Public Interest Litigation; Temple Administration; Administrative
issues; Maladministration; Crowd management; Development of
corridor; Acquisition of land from temple funds.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6855
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CNTA No. 4429 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kartikey, Abhikalp Pratap Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vibha Makija, Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advs., Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Kumar
Mihir, K.B. Upadhyay, Pushkar Anand, A. Radhakrishnan, Shivansh
Bharatkumar Pandya, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Sankalp Goswami,
Shivansh B. Pandya.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2017
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/
Respondent No. 3 (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
2018 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to 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.
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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2019
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2020 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023, 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2021
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2022 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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, 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2023
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Court placed before the Court the instructions
so 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.
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;
2024 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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. 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,—
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2025
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(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;
(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.
2026 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
20. In Satyanarayan Banerji & Another Vs.
Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2027
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2028 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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 established
or can be indubitably inferred.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2029
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(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 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.
2030 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2031
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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 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
2032 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2033
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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.
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:
2034 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“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, 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 role of State
Government becomes pivotal in ensuring early resolution
of the present problem.
…
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2035
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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. 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
2036 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2037
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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).
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
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
2038 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2039
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
deity but is also knowledgeable in the Vedas and Shastras.
While the present receiver is the son of the Vice-President
of the Respondent 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 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.
2040 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
stampede in the year 2022 resulting into death and injuries to
large number of devotees.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2041
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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.
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
2042 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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 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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2043
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
“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
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.”
2044 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
requires attention as Yamuna Ji is believed to be purifying and a
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2045
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2046 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2047
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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 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
2048 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2049
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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-
2050 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2051
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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 Union of
2052 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2053
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2054 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2055
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2056 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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 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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2057
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
“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.”
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
2058 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2059
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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 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
2060 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
[…]
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2061
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
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, 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.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Appointment of Receiver"Sign in to search