UP Govt Offers To Administer Mathura Temples Which Are Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Supreme Court's Permission

In a case where the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the appointment of advocates as court receivers of various temples in Mathura, the State of Uttar Pradesh today (February 6) requested the Court to hand over the temples' management to the State during the pendency of the civil suits.   

Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the State is seeking the handover of the management of the 8 temples in Mathura, where the advocates have been appointed as receivers.

"We request your lordships to issue directions to decide the civil proceedings at the earliest, please consider permitting this Parishad to either administer directly or appoint people who can administer from local people - who are associated with the temple, their administration. They will run and administer the temple under the order of your lordships' court until such time the civil proceedings are finally concluded." 

Pahwa referred to the State Legislation recently enacted to ensure the protection and preservation of the heritage of the Mathura Temples in specific. As per the Act, there would be a State Parishad having an expert body to manage the temples in Mathura until their court disputes are settled. 

"We have to only make sure that this body of experts, which has people from the local region- who have no other interest but to administer holistically, is permitted to run the temple until such time that the civil proceedings are finally concluded."

He also added that such temples receive funds or offerings from the devotees in lakhs and proper receivers were needed. 

The bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the issue of the appointment of advocates as receivers of Temples in Uttar Pradesh. The plea was filed by one Ishwar Chanda Sharma, who was appointed by a Mathura Court as a member of a Committee for management and operation (ie Receiver/Manager) of a temple. His grievance is that the Mathura Court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. In December last year, the bench had raised concerns at the Mathura temples coming under the receivership of advocates.

On  Banke Bihari Temple : Permission Sought By UP Govt To Use Temple Funds To Buy Additional Land To Accommodate Devotees 

Referring to Shri Banke Bihari Temple established in 1864, Pahwa highlighted that the main temple area was only 500 square yards but received a massive footfall of devotees. 

"Everyday there are 40,000 to 50,000 devotees coming on a weekday. The figure swells up to 1.5 lakhs to two lakhs per weekend, On festivals- 5Lakhs plus! The total area of the temple is 1,200 sqft." 

In 2022, in a PIL  before the Allahabad High Court, the state submitted that to manage the crowd and build a better holding area and corridor for the devotees at the temple,  it took steps to buy an additional 5 acres of land in the name of that temple. He emphasized that the State had no interest in the management within the temple but only wanted to cater to the betterment of the devotees. 

"We don't want to have ownership rights, nothing in the temple except to make sure the welfare of the devotees around the temple ...inside temple we have no concern, we are not interested directly to go inside the temple." 

However, he added that though the High Court sanctioned the scheme, tthe Court said that funds of the temple could not be used for any other purposes. Thus, the state is now seeking permission from the present bench to buy additional land out of the temple funds in the name of the temple. 

Advocates Can Be Appointed As Receiver; No Bar Under Order 40 Of CPC: Appellants Argue

The appellants represented by AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Advocate Kartikay argued that "Order 40 of CPC, does not implicitly or explicitly specify any requirement. Tt is solely on the discretion of the Court for the appointment of receivers." 

Notably, Order 40 details the procedure for the appointment of receivers. Order 40, rules 1 states : 

(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 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.  

Stressing on sub-clause (d), the counsel added that an advocate would very much fit the role of defending suits and management etc, of the temple. 

He also relied on the following part of Paragraph 29 of the impugned order (as underlined) to emphasize that an advocate can also be considered fit in terms of his devotion and connectivity with the deity. 

"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."  

The counsel for the Respondents, Advocate Prachi Nirwan informed the bench that subsequent to the impugned order of the High Court, the Mathura District Court on September 14, 2024, appointed a fresh receiver Mr Krishan Kumar Sharma and is receiving Rs. 20,000/- per month. 

Nirwan argued that since the impugned order has been followed through, the present matter becomes infructuous. Secondly, she objected to the State of U.P's plea to be handed over the temple management duties as in their application they seek to administer the temple funds. This would affect the members of the committee running the temple in question. In stating so, reliance was placed on S. 22 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 which provides that the Government cannot hold charge of the property for support of any mosque or temple. 

Since the temple dispute before the Mathura Court has been pending for 25 years, the respondents urged the Court to direct that the hearing of the dispute be fast-tracked. 

Dr. Subramanium Swamy represented by Advocate Vishesh Kanodia had also filed an application seeking to oppose the State Government's plea to manage the temples. Since the application was not listed on record, Swamy was not permitted to argue today.

In the application, Swamy opposed the temple management being given to the UP Govt mainly on the ground that the temple administration cannot be permanently given to the state government as held in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. Doing so would be violative of the fundamental rights of the devotees under Articles 14, 25, 26 and 31A of the Constitution. 

The bench also refused to hear Sr Advocate Vibha Makhija representing the original defendant in the temple suit as the impleadment application was earlier dismissed on defaults. 

Before The High Court

The High Court had observed in its order that out of 197 temples mentioned in a list prepared by District Judge, Mathura, there were civil litigations pending with respect to temples situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc. These litigations ranged from 1923-2024 and practicing advocates of Mathura Court had been appointed Receivers in them.

"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."

It was further noted that 8 temples ie Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul; Mukharbind, Govardhan; Danghati, Govardhan; Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are under the grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by practicing advocates of Mathura.

Calling for Advocates to be kept away from the management of the temples, the High Court stated,

"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. Efforts should be made for disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes at the earliest and the matter should not linger for decades."

Case Title: ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA VERSUS DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., Diary No(s). 52096/2024