SHANKARDAS AND ORS. Vs. DEVKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Shankardas and Brijmohan are aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the learned S.D.M., Chhabra, whereby he has appointed a receiver on a land belonging to a temple. They are also aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2010, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Chhabra, District Baran, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by them and has upheld the order dated 20.8.2008. The brief facts of the case are that in village Kaisholi, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran, a temple of Lord Ram exists. According to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Devkaran and Chander Mohan, they are hereditary priests of the said temple. However, subsequently, they had appointed Shankardas and Brijmohan as priests for carrying out the religious activities of the temple. For this purpose, they were paying them salary and giving them food grain for the maintenance of their families. But according to the respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioners had started indulging in certain activities, which were against the religious sentiments of the people at large. According to the respondents, the petitioners would drink within the temple complex, would collect antisocial elements within the complex, and would even carry out flesh trade in the complex. When the respondents tried to explain to the petitioner No. 1, Shankardas and requested him not to drink within the complex, he became agitated and tried to assault them. Therefore, an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for evicting the petitioners from the temple complex was filed. By order dated 20.8.2008, the learned S.D.M. appointed the Tehsildar Chhabra, as a receiver. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 16-1-2010, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(2.) Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

(3.) On the other hand, Dr. Mahesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently contended that there is evidence to show that both the parties were, in fact, fighting over the land which belonged to the deity. Since, the temple belongs to the respondents, they had a right to cultivate the land belonging to the deity; the petitioners could not have interfered with the same. Moreover, considering their anti-religious activities, they deserve to be evicted from the temple. Therefore, the learned S.D.M. and the learned Judge were justified in appointing the Receiver over the land. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned orders.