# Sohan Lal Sharma v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 12611 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sohan-lal-sharma-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-47743
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil law - Temple property - Status -
Title claimed by the successors of Pujari -
Duty
of
Shebait/manager
and
its
successor defined - The Deity 'Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan' as
the owner of the land, in question was
found proved as per the revenue record -
Held, the petitioner has no right, title or
interest in deity - It is bounden duty of
Shebait or Manager to protect the temple
property. He cannot usurp such property
for his own gains - If a Pujari or Manager
claims proprietary rights over the property
of
temple,
then
it
is
an
act
of
mismanagement. (Para 8, 11 and 12)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
447
benefit was pending consideration, the State
Government issued Government Order dated
05.12.2019 laying down the parameters for
grant of the zero period benefit. The said
Government Order was adopted by the
authority. Once the Government Order dated
05.12.2019 was in existence, the claim of the
petitioner was required to be considered in
terms of the parameters laid down in the
Government Order dated 05.12.2019. We
also take note of the fact that subsequently
the authority has issued an office order dated
03.03.2020 adopting the Government Order
dated 05.12.2019. This being so, we are of
the view that the rejection of the claim of the
petitioner for grant of zero period benefit by
the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is
wholly unjustified and the petitioner is
entitled for grant of zero period benefit.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
partly allowed and the impugned order dated
23.12.2019 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for grant of zero period benefit is
set aside. It is held that the petitioner is
entitled for grant of zero period benefit from
the date of allotment, i.e. 25.04.2011 to till
date. The respondents-Authority are also
directed to consider the sanctioning of the
revised
layout
plan
regarding
FH-02,
Agricultural
Green, Greater Noida, in
accordance
with
law
considering
the
observations made herein-above.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 12611 of 2022

Sohan Lal Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjeet Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satyendra Pandey

A. Civil law - Temple property - Status -
Title claimed by the successors of Pujari -
Duty
of
Shebait/manager
and
its
successor defined - The Deity 'Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan' as
the owner of the land, in question was
found proved as per the revenue record -
Held, the petitioner has no right, title or
interest in deity - It is bounden duty of
Shebait or Manager to protect the temple
property. He cannot usurp such property
for his own gains - If a Pujari or Manager
claims proprietary rights over the property
of
temple,
then
it
is
an
act
of
mismanagement. (Para 8, 11 and 12)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Meghmala Vs G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8
SCC 383
2.
Bishwanath
&
anr.
Vs
Shri
Thakur
Radhaballabhji & ors; AIR 1967 SC 1044
3.
Sri
Ganapathi
Dev
Temple
Trust
Vs
Balakrishna Bhat (D) Thr. Lrs.; (2019) 9 SCC
495
4. St. of M.P. Vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan
Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Saurabh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Amit Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 10.04.2022 passed by respondent
no.2 which contains a Annexure no.10 to
the writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding to
the respondents no to stop the petitioner for
any sale or any kind use pendency of the
writ petition.

iii) issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding to
the respondents not to take any action upon
the application of the respondent no 5, in
the interest of justice;"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that land of Khevat No.26
measuring 10 acres 14 decimal situated at
village Rajpur, was purchased by the
ancestor of the petitioner namely Sri Radha
Prasad and thus, the petitioner is rightful
owner. He further submits that earlier there
were 11 plot numbers, which, after
consolidation, were converted into one plot
number being khasra Plot No.502, Village
Rajpur
Bangar,
Tehsil
and
District
Mathura. He further submits that there is a
decree of civil court and the rights of the
petitioner in the land in question stand
settled and, therefore, the respondents
cannot interfere with the rights of the
petitioner in the land in question.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing
counsel submits that neither ancestor of the
petitioner nor the petitioner is the owner of
the land in question. He submits that the
land in question was purchased by Sri
Thakur Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajman
Mandir through Manager Radha S/o
Makkhan Lal by a registered sale deed
dated 28.05.1915. The compromise decree
obtained by the father of the petitioner was
a collusive decree in which there was no
compromise by the Deity which is the
actual owner of the property in question.
He referred to various papers of the
affidavit of compliance/ short counter
affidavit dated 07.09.2022 filed today in
court on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
He submits that the copy of the aforesaid
sale deed dated 28.05.1915 stands admitted
to the petitioner inasmuch as he himself has
filed
it
along
with
supplementary
affidavit dated 05.09.2022. He further
submits that the name of the Deity stands
recorded in the revenue records from
decades together and the revenue entries
particularly Akar Patra 45 and the orders
passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer are in conformity with the sale deed
dated 28.05.1915. He further submits that
the petitioner is not the owner of the land in
question and, therefore, he has no right to
sell it.

Discussion and Findings:-

5. We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records of the
present writ petition. On 22.08.2022, this
court passed the following order:

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is
taken on record.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, the learned standing counsel for
the State respondents and Shri Satyendra
Pandey, learned counsel for respondent
no.5.

Petitioner and respondent no.5 are the
real brothers.

Grievance of the petitioner is that
disputed property being khasra plot no.502,
Rajpur Bangar is a private property and it
10 All. Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
449
does not belong to the Deity and therefore
in terms of the compromise decree dated
26.5.2005 for partition, no interference can
be made by any one for sale of his share in
the property by the petitioner.

Prima-facie records of this writ
petition indicate that the property belongs
to the Deity viz. "Thakur Radha Mohn Ji
Maharaj Virajman Mandir Baag Agar
Bihari, Vrindavan".The petitioner's father
was merely a sevayat. Primafacie it
appears that petitioner's father and his
sons colluded to grab the property
belonging to the Deity and for that purpose
an Injunction Suit No. 751 of 2003 was
filed.
After
a
detailed
order
dated
16.02.2004 was passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mathura, they filed a
compromise deed between them. There is
no whisper in the compromise decree
regarding the compromise by the Deity.

Matter is serious and primafacie
appears to be a case of grabbing of land
belonging to the Deity.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct the
District Magistrate, Mathura to cause an
inquiry and submit a detailed report
regarding all immovable properties of
Deity "Thakur Radha Mohn Ji Maharaj
Virajman Mandir Baag Agar Bihari,
Vrindavan" and submit a detailed report
alongwith copies of all relevant revenue
records i.e, khatauni and copy of the deed
by
which
the
properties,
including
aforesaid khasra plot no. 502, Rajpur
Bangar
were
endowed.
The
District
Magistrate, Mathura shall also file a true
copy/translated copy of the registered sale
deed dated 28.5.2019 which has been
referred at page 92 of the writ petition. The
aforesaid page appears to be part of
affidavit of Narayan Prasad Sharma (father
of the petitioner) filed by him in Suit No.
657
of
1999.
Relevant
portion
of
paragraphs 6, 11 and 15 of the aforesaid
affidavit filed as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition is re-produced below:-

^^iSjkxzkQ&6- okLro esa ckr ;g gS fd Bkdqj
jk/kkeksgu th dh LFkkiuk eq> 'kiFkdrkZ ds ckck
LoxhZ; dh ek[ku yky us vlkZ yxHkx 84 o"kZ iwoZ dh
Fkh rFkk iz'uxr lEifr dks Bkdqj th ds gd es
jftLVMZ cSukek fn0 28-5-1915 }kjk vius iq= ;kfu
eq> 'kiFkdrkZ ds firk Jh jk/kk izlkn 'kekZ ds uke
[kjhnk FkkA

iSjkxzkQ 11- igys izkjEHk esa ;g lEifr ,d
efgyk eqlEekr xaxknsoh ds uke ekS:lh dk'rdkj ds
:i esa vafdr FkhA izfroknh la0 1 ds }kjk Bkdqj th
ds fgrksa ds izfr fd;s x;sa lc iz;klksa ds dkj.k
mijksDr Jherh xaxk nsoh us vius ekS:lh dk'rdkjksa
ls lEcfU/kr leLr vf/kdkj yxHkx 55 o"kZ iwoZ
bLrhQk nsdj lekIr dj fn;sA vkSj rHkh ls eS
'kiFkdrkZ mijksDr lEifRr ij Bkdqj th dh vksj ls
,dek= dCts esa g¡wA

iSjkxzkQ& 15- eq> 'kiFkdrkZ dks bl ckr dk
iw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr gS fd eS 'kiFkdrkZ Bkdqj tks dh
fdlh Hkh lEifRr dks Bkdqj th ds fgrks ds fy,
vLFkkbZ :i ls bl rjg ls vUrfjr dj ldwW ftlls
Bkdqj th ds fgrksa dh lqj{kk Hkh gks ldsaA rFkk Bkdqj
th dks lEifRr dh méfr gksdj Bkdqj th dh lEifRr
muds LokfeRo esa cuh jgsA**

The respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall
ensure that till the next date fixed, no 3rd
party right may be created by any one in
respect of the properties in question.

Petitioner is also directed to file a
Supplementry Affidavit before the next date
fixed enclosing therewith complete details
relating to the immovable properties of the
deity, copy of endowment deed and sale
deed etc.

Put up as fresh on 30.8.2022, at 10
A.M."

6. In compliance to the aforequoted
order dated 22.08.2022, the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 have filed today an affidavit of
compliance/ short counter affidavit dated
07.09.2022 in which they have given
complete details regarding the property in
question. Copies of various documents are
khataunies etc. have been filed along with
the aforesaid affidavit.
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Perusal of the registered sale deed
dated 28.05.1915 clearly establishes that
the property in question i.e. land of Khevat
No.26 measuring 10 acres 14 decimal
was originally owned by Sri Thakur
Pulan Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajmaan
Mandir Mohalla Gyan. One Mahant Radha
Raman Das was the manager of the
aforesaid temple. For the benefit of the
aforesaid Deity, he sold the property in
question to "Sri Thakur Radhamohan Ji
Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir Mohalla
Baag, Agar Bihari Vrindavan through
Manager Radha S/o Makkhan Lal".
Thus, it stands established on record that
the property in question is the property
owned by the Deity namely Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan
Mandir Mohalla Baag, Agar Bihari
Vrindavan.

8. Along with the aforesaid short-counter
affidavit, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
filed copies of khasra of 1359 Fasli, khataunies
of 1360 Fasli, 1363 Fasli to 1365 Fasli, 1366
Fasli to 1369 Fasli, 1373 Fasli to 1375 Fasli,
1376 Fasli to 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli to 1381
Fasli, 1382 Fasli to 1387 Fasli, Akar Patra 45
and copy of khatauni of 1426 Fasli to 1431
Fasli. Perusal of these records shows that there
appears the name of father of the petitioner
namely Narayan Prasad and uncles Govind
Prasad,
Kishanchand,
Premchand,
Radhacharan, all sons of Radha Prasad as
Manager. In 1360 Fasli, an order in Case
No.790 was passed by the Tehsildar, Mathura
dated 31.07.1953 whereby the name of Sri
Ganga Devi was expunged from the khatauni
and in place, the name of the aforesaid persons
as Manager of the Deity was entered. This
entry continued till 1381 Fasli. As per khatauni
1382 Fasli to 1387 Fasli, there was an order
passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer,
Vrindavan
in
Case
No.406+407
dated
27.07.1977 which was followed by another
order in Case No.771/14.12.1977 whereby the
name of the Deity namely "Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan"
through Narayan Prasad Sharma S/o Radha
Prasad Sharma, was ordered to be entered in
the revenue records. The revenue records were
accordingly
corrected
in
consolidation
proceedings. Since the the Fasli Year 13821387 Fasli till today, the name of the Deity,
namely Sri Thakur Radhamohan Ji Maharaj
Virajmaan Mandir Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari
Vrindavan is the recorded owner of the
property in question as per revenue records.
Thus, it stands clearly established that the
Deity "Sri Thakur Radhamohan Ji Maharaj
Virajmaan Mandir Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari
Vrindavan" is the owner of the land of Khasra
Plot No.502 measuring 2.6340 hectares as per
the registered sale deed dated 28.05.1915 and
the revenue records. The petitioner has no
right, title or interest in the landed property of
Khasra Plot No.502. The owner is the
aforesaid
Deity,
namely
"Sri
Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan." The
ancestors of the petitioner have been merely
Manager of the temple. Owner is the aforesaid
Deity. Therefore, merely because for a very
little period in Khasra of 1359 Fasli, the name
of the petitioner's ancestors for whatever
reasons stood mentioned, it shall not confer
any right, title or interest upon the petitioner
with respect to the land in question. The
compromise decree in O.S. No.751 of 2003 as
referred in our aforequoted order dated
22.08.2022, cannot confer any right, title or
interest upon the petitioner or his ancestors in
respect of the land in question inasmuch as the
Deity was not the party to the compromise.

9. Neither any document has been
filed along with the writ petition nor any
averment has been made in the writ petition
by the petitioner which may indicate
10 All. Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
451
ownership of the petitioner or his ancestors
in the immovable property in question, i.e.
Khasra Plot No.502. On the contrary, copy
of
the
registered
sale-deed
dated
28.05.1915 executed by the original owner
Sri Thakur Pulan Bihari Ji Maharaj
Virajmaan Mandir in favour of Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag, Agar Bihari, Vrindavan,
filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, i.e.
District Magistrate, Mathura and the SubDivisional
Magistrate,
Mathura
dated
07.09.2022
and
own
supplementary
affidavit of the petitioner dated 05.09.2022
annexing therewith a copy of the aforesaid
registered sale-deed dated 28.05.1915,
leaves no manner of doubt that the
aforesaid
Deity,
namely
Sri
Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan is the
owner of the immovable property, i.e.
Khasra Plot No.502, measuring 2.6340
hectares.
Therefore,
the
alleged
compromise decree in O.S. No.751 of 2003
is not binding upon the Deity, i.e. owner of
the property in question inasmuch as the
Deity was not party to the suit or the
compromise.

10. In Meghmala v. G. Narasimha
Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383 (paras 28 to 36),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to
large number of its earlier judgments on the
point of fraud and collusion, and its effect
and held as under:-

"28. It is settled proposition of law
that
where
an
applicant
gets
an
order/office by making misrepresentation
or playing fraud upon the competent
authority, such order cannot be sustained
in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all
judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
(Vide
S.P.
Chengalvaraya
Naidu
v.
Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1) In Lazarus
Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702 :
(1956) 2 WLR 502 : (1956) 1 All ER 341
(CA)
the
Court
observed
without
equivocation that: (QB p. 712) "No
judgment of a court, no order of a Minister,
can be allowed to stand if it has been
obtained
by
fraud.
Fraud
unravels
everything."

29. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. v.
GAR Re-Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647
and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu,
(1994) 2 SCC 481 this Court observed that
a writ court, while exercising its equitable
jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent
perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts
are obliged to do justice by promotion of
good faith. "Equity is always known to
defend the law from crafty evasions and
new subtleties invented to evade law."

30. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros.,
(1992) 1 SCC 534 it has been held as
under: (SCC p. 553, para 20)

"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even
the most solemn proceedings in any
civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct."

31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581 this
Court observed that "Fraud and justice
never dwell
together" (fraus et jus
nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine
maxim which has never lost its temper over
all these centuries.

32. The ratio laid down by this Court
in various cases is that dishonesty should
not be permitted to bear the fruit and
benefit to the persons who played fraud or
made misrepresentation and in such
circumstances
the
Court
should
not
perpetuate the fraud. (See Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Society
v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC
655, Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995
Supp (4) SCC 100, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SCC 325, State of Maharashtra v. Ravi
Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, (2007) 1
SCC 80, Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd.
v. Coal Tar Refining Co. (2007) 8 SCC 110
and Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar,
(2009) 8 SCC 751.

33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral
act, and fraud of an egregious nature
would vitiate the most solemn proceedings
of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of
deliberate deception with a design to
secure something, which is otherwise not
due. The expression "fraud" involves two
elements, deceit and injury to the person
deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage. [Vide Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi
Admn., AIR 1963 SC 1572, Indian Bank v.
Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5
SCC 550, State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra
Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149, K.D. Sharma v.
SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Central
Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad
Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 170.

34. An act of fraud on court is always
viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy
with a view to deprive the rights of the
others in relation to a property would
render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud
and deception are synonymous. Although in
a given case a deception may not amount to
fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable
principles and any affair tainted with fraud
cannot be perpetuated or saved by the
application of any equitable doctrine
including res judicata. Fraud is proved
when it is shown that a false representation
has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii)
without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly,
careless whether it be true or false.
Suppression of a material document would
also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, (1994) 1 SCC
1, Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar
Family Trust, (1996) 3 SCC 310, Ram
Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8
SCC 319, Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal,
(2002) 1 SCC 100, Ram Preeti Yadav v.
U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate
Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311 and Ashok
Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC
1.

35. In Kinch v. Walcott, 1929 AC 482
: 1929 All ER Rep 720 (PC) it has been
held that:

"... mere constructive fraud is not, at
all events after long delay, sufficient but
such a judgment will not be set aside upon
mere proof that the judgment was obtained
by perjury".

Thus,
detection/discovery
of
constructive fraud at a much belated stage
may not be sufficient to set aside the
judgment procured by perjury.
36. From the above, it is evident that even
in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is
proved, all advantages gained by playing
fraud can be taken away. In such an
eventuality the questions of non-executing
of the statutory remedies or statutory bars
like doctrine of res judicata are not
attracted. Suppression of any material
fact/document amounts to a fraud on the
court. Every court has an inherent power to
recall its own order obtained by fraud as
the order so obtained is non est."

Status of Manager or Shebait:

Deity-
A
minor,
duty
of
Shebait/Manager to protect interest of
Deity and not to usurp property for own
gains:-

11. In the present set of facts, the
aforesaid Deity is the owner of the property
in question on the basis of the title deed dated
28.05.1915. Ancestors of the petitioner have
been manager of the temple/Deity. It is
bounden duty of Shebait or Manager to
protect the temple property. He cannot usurp
such property for his own gains. A Shebait,
10 All. Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
453
Manager or Archaka etc. is the person
functioning as a manager/trustee of such
temple. He is the guardian of the idol and
conducts all transactions on its behalf, solely
for the benefit of the idol and not otherwise.
In the case of Bishwanath And Anr vs Shri
Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors, AIR 1967
SC 1044, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
three legal concepts are well settled : (i) An
idol of a Hindu temple is a juridical person;
(ii) when there is a Shebait, ordinarily no
person other than the Shebait can represent
the idol; and (iii) worshippers of an idol are
its beneficiaries, though only in a spiritual
sense. An idol is in the position of a minor;
when the person representing it leaves it in
the lurch, a person interested in the worship
of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad
hoc power to protect its interest. The
aforesaid
settled
principles
have
been
reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
large numbers of judgments including the
judgment in the case of Sri Ganapathi Dev
Temple Trust vs Balakrishna Bhat (D)
Thr. Lrs. (2019) 9 SCC 495 (para 12).

12. In a recent judgment in the State
of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan
Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222 (Para 23 to
26), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
status
of
a
Pujari
with
respect
to
management of the property of the Deity
and held that Pujari is only a grantee to
manage the property of the Deity. He does
not have any right in the land and his status
is only that of a manager. Rights of a Pujari
or Shebait do not stand on the same footing
as that of a Mourushi in the ordinary sense.
If a Pujari or Manager claims proprietary
rights over the property of temple, then it is
an act of mismanagement. Paragraphs 23,
24, 25 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced below:-

"23. This question has already been
considered by the courts in Panchamsingh
v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC
OnLine MP 26, which has further been
affirmed by Kanchaniya6. The law is clear
on the distinction that the Pujari is not a
Kashtkar Mourushi i.e. tenant in cultivation
or a government lessee or an ordinary
tenant of the muafi lands but holds such
land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for
the purpose of management. The Pujari is
only a grantee to manage the property of
the deity and such grant can be reassumed
if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to
him i.e. to offer prayers and manage the
land. He cannot be thus treated as a
Bhumiswami. The Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram,
1992 Supp (2) SCC 250 further clarifies
that the Pujari does not have any right in
the land and his status is only that of a
manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on
the same footing as that of Kashtkar
Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are
entitled to all rights including the right to
sell or mortgage.

24.
In
a
judgment
reported
as
Ramchand v. Janki Ballabhji Maharaj,
(1969) 2 SCC 313, it was held that if the
Pujari claims proprietary rights over the
property of the temple, it is an act of
mismanagement and he is not fit to remain in
possession or to continue as a Pujari.

25. The contrary view expressed by the
High Court in Ghanshyamdas v. State of
M.P., 1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235,
Sadashiv Giri v. Commr., 1985 RN 317 and
Shrikrishna v. State of M.P., 1995 SCC
OnLine MP 161 : (2012) 4 MP LJ 466 does
not lay down good law in view of binding
precedent of the Division Bench of the High
Court in Panchamsingh7 as also of this
Court in Kanchaniya6. All these judgments
presenting a contrasting view had not noticed
the said binding precedents dealing with the
rights of priest under the Gwalior Act.
26. Taking into consideration the past
precedents, and the fact that under the
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given the
right to manage the property of the temple,
it is clear that that does not elevate him to
the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in
cultivation)."

13. For all the reasons aforesaid, we do
not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

14. After this judgment was dictated in
open court, learned counsel or the petitioner
states that the petitioner may be permitted to
withdraw this writ petition.

15. We are not inclined to accept the
request of learned counsel for the petitioner
inasmuch as we have heard at length the writ
petition on merit and dictated judgment in
open court. After the judgment has been
dictated, the request of the petitioner to
withdraw the writ petition cannot be
accepted. Hence, the request is rejected.

16. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
shall intimate this order in writing to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 within ten days, who
shall take all steps to protect the aforesaid
property of the Deity being Khasra Plot
No.502.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 454
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 18052 of 2022
connected with Writ -C No. 18053 of 2022

M/s NSOFT(IND.) Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, Sri Shagun K. Saran, Sri
Kartikey Dubey, Sri Prashant Chandra (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Udit Chandra

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Judicial review - Show cause notice
- Maintainability of writ against it - Held,
ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a
writ petition questioning a notice to show
cause unless it is without jurisdiction;
however, when a notice is issued with
premeditation, writ petition would be
maintainable. (Para 15)
B. Civil law - Public contract - Blacklisting
of the contractor - No opportunity of
hearing - Held, the order of blacklisting
involves civil consequences and has the
effect
of
creating
a
disability
by
preventing a person from the privilege and
advantage
of
entering
into
lawful
relationship with the government - A fair
hearing
to
the
party
before
being
blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the
power - The applicability of the principle
of audi alteram partem and the necessity
of issuance of show cause notice also
becomes imperative before passing of any
such order of blacklisting - However, High
Court held the challenge to the show
cause notices premature for the reason
that the mere indication of the grounds
and the penalty proposed, would not give
rise to a cause of action - High Court
refused to exercise the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to interfere in the
matter, leaving it open to the petitioners
to submit their response to the show
cause notices. (Para 30, 39, 41 and 42)
C. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Principle of natural justice - Principle of