# Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 848
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-09
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 18937 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vipin-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50774
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Section 92 - Where a civil suit under Section
92 CPC is pending before the competent court
regarding a public charitable trust, any direction
for implementation of a prior summary order
under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
is impermissible. Relief sought by the petitioner
with respect to administration and management
of a religious temple must be pursued before
the civil court in terms of Section 92 CPC.
Representation seeking implementation of such
Tahsildar's order during pendency of the civil
suit is not legally sustainable.

Key Words:

Public Trust - Religious Temple - Section 92
CPC - Summary Proceedings - Tahsildar's Order
- Civil Court Jurisdiction - Mandamus -
Management of Temple - Mutation

JUDGMENT:

## Text

848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 848
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 18937 of 2023

Vipin Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Arun
Kumar
Srivastava,
Priyanka
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava

Held:
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Section 92 - Where a civil suit under Section
92 CPC is pending before the competent court
regarding a public charitable trust, any direction
for implementation of a prior summary order
under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
is impermissible. Relief sought by the petitioner
with respect to administration and management
of a religious temple must be pursued before
the civil court in terms of Section 92 CPC.
Representation seeking implementation of such
Tahsildar's order during pendency of the civil
suit is not legally sustainable.

Key Words:

Public Trust - Religious Temple - Section 92
CPC - Summary Proceedings - Tahsildar's Order
- Civil Court Jurisdiction - Mandamus -
Management of Temple - Mutation

JUDGMENT:
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 -
Section 92 - Petition seeking mandamus to
implement Tahsildar's order dated 09.06.1993
and to direct eviction of unauthorized occupants
from temple property was dismissed in view of
pending civil suit under Section 92 CPC. The
Court observed that during pendency of such
suit,
all
issues
concerning
administration,
management, and possession of trust property
must be raised before the civil court itself.
Reliance on mutation proceedings under Section
34
U.P.
Land
Revenue
Act
for
such
implementation was held impermissible.

Writ Petition Dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4-
Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the District Magistrate, Firozabad to take
appropriate action upon the representation
dated 1.4.2023.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent authorities to ensure the
compliance of the order dated 9.6.1993
passed by the Tahsildar in Case No.213 /90
of 1993 (Vijay Pral Vs. Maya Devi) under
Section 34 of Land Revenue Act and hand
over the management and control of temple
Thakur Ramchandraji Maharaj Virajman
Mandir, Pachokhara, Tahsil- Tundala,
District- Firozabad.

iii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
9 All. Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849
the respondent authorities to evict the
respondent nos.5 & 6 from unauthorized
possession
of
the
temple
Thakur
Ramchandraji Maharaj Virajman Mandir
and hand over the management of the
temple
to
the
Gram
Panchayat,
Pachokhara, Tahsil- Tundala, District-
Firozabad.

iv. issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the present case.

v. award the cost of the petition in
favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Tahsildar vide order
dated 9.6.1993 decided the mutation
matter and ordered that the parties should
approach
competent
Court
for
appointment of sarvarakar and further
made certain arrangement in respect to
the
temple
in
dispute.
He
further
submitted that subsequently civil suit
under Section 92 of Code of Civil
Procedure has been file and the suit was
decreed vide judgment dated 15.4.2014.
He next submitted that the decree of civil
suit was challenged in appeal and the
appellate Court has allowed the appeal
setting aside the judgment and decree
passed in the civil suit dated 15.4.2014
and restored the suit No.1 of 2012 under
section 92 CPC to its original number. He
also submitted that since the civil Suit
No.1 of 2012 has been restored to its
original number, as such, the order passed
by the Tahsildar dated 9.6.1993 be
implemented. He further submitted that
the petitioner has filed the representation
to
this
effect
before
respondentauthorities, which is pending, as such,
necessary direction be issued for deciding
the
petitioner's
representation
in
accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek
Shukla,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
Staterespondents submitted that since the suit,
under Section 92 of C.P.C. is pending
before civil court, as such, the petitioner
should approach the civil Court for
proper relief as claimed by the petitioner
in the instant petition. He further
submitted that Section 92(1)(cc) of
C.P.C. provides for grant of relief during
pendency of the suit under Section 92 of
C.P.C., as such, representation filed by
the petitioner cannot be maintained in the
eye of law.

5. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact
that suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. has
been filed which is pending before the civil
Court.

7. In order to appreciate the
controversy the perusal of section 92 of
Civil Procedure Code will be relevant
which is as under:-

"92. Public Charities?(1) In the
case of any alleged breach of any express
or constructive trust created for public
purposes of a charitable or religious
nature, or where the direction of the Court
is deemed necessary for the administration
of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or
two or more persons having an interest in
the trust and having obtained the [leave of
the Court,] may institute a suit, whether
contentious or not, in the principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction or in any
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other Court empowered in that behalf by
the State Government within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or
any part of the subject-matter of the trust is
situate to obtain a decree?

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) vesting any property in a
trustee;

[(cc) directing a trustee who has
been removed or a person who has ceased
to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any
trust property in his possession to the
person entitled to the possession of such
property;]

(d)
directing
accounts
and
inquiries;

(e) declaring what proportion of
the trust property or of the interest therein
shall be allocated to any particular object
of the trust;

(f) authorising the whole or any
part of the trust property to be let, sold,
mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) settling a scheme; or

(h) granting such further or other
relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) Save as provided by the
Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of
1863), [or by any corresponding law in
force in [the territories which, immediately
before the 1st November, 1956, were
comprised in Part B States]], no suit
claiming any of the reliefs specified in subsection (1) shall be instituted in respect of
any such trust as is therein referred to
except in conformity with the provisions of
that sub-section.

[(3) The Court may alter the
original purposes of an express or
constructive
trust
created
for
public
purposes of a charitable or religious nature
and allow the property or income of such
trust or any portion thereof to be applied
cypres in one or more of the following
circumstances, namely:?

(a) where the original purposes
of the trust, in whole or in part,?

(i) have been, as far as may be,
fulfilled; or

(ii) cannot be carried out at all,
or cannot be carried out according to the
directions given in the instrument creating
the trust or, where there is no such
instrument, according to the spirit of the
trust; or

(b) where the original purposes
of the trust provide a use for a part only of
the property available by virtue of the trust;
or

(c)
where
the
property
available by virtue of the trust and other
property applicable for similar purposes
can
be
more
effectively
used
in
conjunction with, and to that end can
suitably be made applicable to any other
purpose, regard being had to the spirit
of the trust and its applicability to
common purposes; or

(d) where the original purposes,
in whole or in part, were laid down by
reference to an area which then was, but
has since ceased to be, a unit for such
purposes; or
9 All. Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
851

(e) where the original purposes,
in whole or in part, have, since they were
laid down,?

(i) been adequately provided for
by other means, or

(ii) ceased, as being useless or
harmful to the community, or

(iii) ceased to be, in law,
charitable, or

(iv) ceased in any other way to
provide a suitable and effective method of
using the property available by virtue of the
trust, regard being had to the spirit of the
trust.]"

8. The order which was passed by
Tahsildar on 9.6.1993 in the proceeding
under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act
is also necessary for perusal which is as
under:-

"न्यायालय तहसीलदार तहसील व जिला जफरोिाबाद जशजवर
न्यायालय र्ूण्िला
वाद सं०213/90 सन् 1993ई०
जवियपाल बनाम मायादेवी
िारा-34 एल०आर एक्र्
मौिा० पचोिरा
नकल आदेश जदनांक 9/6/93

यह वाद जवियपालदास बाबा रामबीर वास्ते सवकराही
मायादेवी बाई जनवासी अिैत पचोिरा जफरोिाबाद व बाबा
बहोरीदास व रघुनाथदास जनवासी िीनगर पचोिरा व स्वामी
जववेकानन्द महाराि द्वारा पृथक पृथक दाजिल िाररि की ररपोर्क
पर प्रारम्र् हुआ है सर्ी में जवजिवत इश्तहार िारी जकया गया है
िो वाद तामील वापस आया है। जवियपाल दास की दाजिल
िाररि ररपोर्क में बाबा बहोरीदास व रघुनाथदास व िगतानन्द िी
महाराि द्वारा अपनी आपजत्त प्रस्तुत की गई है जवियपालदास
द्वारा जकसी में कोई आपजत्त नहीं दी गयी है जवियपाल दास द्वारा
मौिा पचौिरा के िाता सं०170 िसरा सं०1251 रकवा 34-1 पर माया देवी बाई की मृत्यु उपरान्त फौती के आिार पर
नामान्तरण चाहा गया है तथा बहोरीदास व रघुनादास द्वारा चेला
के आिार पर अपना अपना नाम अंजकत कराने की प्राथकना का
मौका जदया गया है साक्ष्य में िीराम व ज्वालाजसंह व र्गवान
जसंह व जवियपाल स्वंय ने अपने ब्यान अंजकत कराये है िीराम
गवाह ने अपने ब्यान में जवियपाल को गांव चौगान का बताया है
तथा िाते पर अंजकत पूवक सरबराकार द्वाररका प्रसाद को गांव
चौगान का बताते हुए जवियपाल का बाबा बताया है तथा यह र्ी
कहा जक यह िमीन जवियपाल को जमलनी चाजहए ज्वाला प्रसाद
गवाह ने बहोरीदास को बाबा बताया है तथा जवियपाल को
ग्रहस्थ िीवन यापन करते हुए कहा है जक र्गवान जसंह ने कहा है
जक मजन्दर से लगनी चाजहए द्वाररकाप्रसाद का कोई चेला नहीं था
अन्य गवाहों ने र्ी र्ूजम को मजन्दर से लगे रहने का मत प्रकर्
जकया है जवियपाल दास ने र्ी यही स्वीकार जकया जक िमीन
मजन्दर की ही रहे मैं अपने नाम नहीं चाहता यह र्ूजम मेरे बाबा िी
द्वाररका प्रसाद द्वारा िरीद कर मजन्दर के जहत में लगाई गई थी।
मैंने पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्यों का अवलोकन जकया है जवद्वान
अजिवक्ताओं के तकक सुने है आपजत्तकताक के अजिवक्ता ने कहा है
जक मजन्दर की र्ूजम ग्राम सर्ा में दे दी िाये और ग्राम सर्ा
उसकी देिर्ाल कर वादी पि के अजिवक्ता ने रािस्व पररषद
की जनगरानी सं०130/82-83 महन्त सदाजशव र्ारती बनाम
र्ूपेन्र जसंह की जनगरानी का छायाप्रजत प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह तकक
जदया है जक िब तक पूवक सरबराकार द्वारा जलजित रूप में कोई
सरवराकार जनयुजक्त न जकया गया हो तब ऐसी दशा में सरबराकार
की जनयुजक्त जसजवल न्यायालय द्वारा ही तय की िायेग। न्यायालय
माल को सरवराकार तय करने का अजिकार नहीं है। दोनो पिों
के तकों के आिार पर में जनष्कषक पर पहुंचा ह ं जक पत्रावली में
ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ि नहीं है जिससे यह स्पष्ट हो सके की पूवक
सरवराकार द्वारा कोई सरवराकार या चेला जनयुजक्त जकया गया है
ऐसी दशा में यह मामला इस न्यायालय के अजिकार िेत्र के
बाहर है िब तक सिम न्यायालय से सरवराकार जनयुजक्त नहीं हो
िाता तब तक िातेदार िीठाकुर रामचन्र िी महाराि ब्रिमान
मजन्दर बदस्तूर िाता कायत रहेगा तथा मजन्दर की देिर्ाल एवं
र्ूजम की व्यवस्था हेतु आदेश जदया िाता है जक अध्यि ग्राम
सर्ा पचोिरा अपने अपने स्तर से मजन्दर की पूिा अचकना हेतु
एवं र्ूजम की देिर्ाल अपने स्तर से करेंगे साथ ही उन्हें यह र्ी
जनदेजशत जकया िाता है जक मजन्दर से लगी र्ूजम से होने वाली
आय का ब्यौरा जवजिक रूप से रिेंगे। िब तक जकसी सिम
अदालत द्वारा सरवराकार बनने का अजिकार प्राप्त नहीं नहीं िाता
सर्ी पि सरवराकार या प्रबन्िक तय कराने के जलए सिम
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
न्यायालय में वाद प्रस्तुत करे नामान्तरण प्राथकना पत्र बतौर
सरबराकार एवं जवरासतन जवियपाल रस, बहोरोदास, िगतानन्द
जनरस्त जकये िाते है। पत्रावली वाद आवश्यक कायकवाही दजिल
दफ्तर की िायें।

एस०िी०

तहसीलदार "

9. Considering the fact of pendency of
the suit under section 92 of Civil Procedure
Code as well as the provisions contained
under section 92 of Civil Procedure Code
there is no question for implementation of
the order of Tahsildar dated 9.6.1993
passed under section 34 of U.P. Land
Revenue Act as complete procedure has
been provided in respect to the suit under
section 92 of Civil Procedure Code for
maintenance
of
the
property
during
pendency of the suit.

10. Since the suit under section 92
of Civil Procedure Code is pending, as
such, appropriate application can be filed
in the pending suit, under Section 92 of
C.P.C. rather implementation of the
direction passed in summary proceeding
under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue
Act.

11. No interference is required in the
matter.

12. The writ petition is dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 852
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 18993 of 2023
Mahaveer & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Harish Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held -
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Section 152 - Application under Section 152
CPC seeking correction of accidental omission in
vesting order dated 07.04.1993 - Earlier sale
deed declared void by Civil Court - Collector
rejecting recall application as not maintainable -
Collector failed to appreciate applicability of
Section 152 CPC in view of Section 341 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and Section 214 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Judgment in
Surajbhan Sharma and Sharma Singh binding -
Civil Suit No.18/2015 decreed; St. was party
therein - Impugned order unsustainable - Matter
remitted to Collector to decide application on
merits.

Writ petition allowed in part.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Surajbhan Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition
No.58827
of
2011,
decided
on
21.10.2011

2. Sharma Singh anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-C
No.29898
of
2014,
decided
on
28.05.2014

3. M.S. Ahlawat Vs St. of Har., (2000) 1 SCC
278

4. Jai Narain Vs Chhedalal, AIR 1960 All 385

Important Provisions Referred:

1. Section 152, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

2. Section 214, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

3. Section 341, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950