- (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:- Firstly, the entire allegations against the petitioners was that they were misusing the temple complex for irreligious activities. Thus, by their conduct they were lowering the esteem of the temple in the eyes of the people. The faith of the people in the temple deity was being corroded. When the respondents requested them to desist from consuming alcohol in the premise, the petitioner No. 1 became agitated and tried to assault the respondents. According to the learned counsel, the case does not fall within the four comers of Section 145 Cr.P.C. as the case is merely with regard to disturbance of public peace. Therefore, the entire application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was highly misplaced. Secondly, the learned S.D.M. has invented a new story that both the parties are trying to cultivate the land belonging to the deity. There is no evidence on record to show that the parties were about to disturb the public peace, as they were fighting over the cultivation of the land. In fact, not an iota of allegation has been made vis-a-vis the land. In spite of the fact that there was no mention of the land, yet still the learned S.D.M., has appointed the Tehsildar as a receiver over the land belonging to the deity. Hence, the learned S.D.M., has misapplied himself to the facts of the case. Thirdly, no relief was sought by the respondents under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. Yet, the learned S.D.M. has granted the relief under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned S.D.M. has travelled beyond the prayer clause of the application. Lastly, even the learned Judge has not noticed that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the alleged conduct of the petitioners within the temple complex. Instead, in a mechanical manner, the learned Judge has passed the order dated 16-1-2010. Hence, according to the learned counsel, both the orders need to be interfered with.
(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.;