BABA SHAMBHU GIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1981 passed by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Bareilly whereby he has partly allowed the revision filed by Union of India through D.R. M., Northern Railway, Moradabad.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on being satisfied with the report of Incharge, Police Out put, Chouraha and Circle officers city Moradabad dated 15.12.1973 that there was a dispute likely to cause breach of peace over the question of possession on a Hanuman Mandir and four shows of the Mandir situate near the Bareily Railway Junction, the City Magistrate, Bareilly passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. on 15.12.1973 requiring the parties to file their written statements and to adduce evidence regarding their respective claims of possession over the property in dispute. The Magistrate a[s0 passed an emergency attachment order of the property in question by the same order dated 15.12.1973. All the property so attached was entrusted to the custody of one Sri R. Sharma. The contestants who appeared for or on behalf of Union of India are Sri R.D. Sharma, Secretary, Northern Railway mens Union, Bareilly (O.P. No. 3), Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Moradabad (O.P. 2). On the other hand, opposite side was represented by Smt. Rani Sharma, who late Satishan and. Sri R.D. Sharma claimed possession over the general property of the temple; the Union of India through its Divisional Superintendent (now called D.R.M.) Northern Railway claimed that the land on which the temple and its shops were standing belonged to them and they claimed constructive possession over them. Smt. Sushila Devi alias Rani Sharma, O.P. No. 4 alleged that she was legally wedded wife of late Satishan and and was the only actual owner in possession of the property in dispute till his death in the month of June 1973. After the death of her husband, she along with her son and daughter claimed possession over the property in dispute. On the other hand Mahant Kamal Gin predecessor of the revisionist nos. 1 and 2 alleged that he was a member of Anand Akhara which as an old institution of Sanyasis and had been registered under the Registration Act, 1946. According to him, Mandir in question along with its 4 shops and other building near it were in his possession on behalf of Anand Akhara. He also alleged that the Mandir was more than 100 years old but about 35 years ago, double story of the building was constructed and new idols had been installed in it. He further alleged that the four shops in dispute had been constructed by him which were in possession of the tenants and he was realizing rent from them. He denied the claims of other parties over the property in dispute but the, much admitted in his written statement dated 5.8.1975 that Hindu public was free to visit the Mandir for Pooja and Kirta He also alleged that Shankara Gin revisionist no. 2 was his disciple and was helping him in the management of the Mandir in dispute. Later on, during the pendency of the case before the Magistrate, Baba Kamal Gin died at the Kumbh mela Prayag on 20.1.1977. Thereafter, Baba Brij Gin and Baba Shambhoo Gin, who had rival claims to become legal representative of the late Baba, were also impleaded as parties.

(3.) On behalf of the Union of India, following documents were submitted.