Dr. Yog Raj Padha vs State And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1558 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                           OWP no. 1532/2013

Dr. Yog Raj Padha                                               .....Petitioner(s)


                      Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

                 Vs


State and ors.                                             ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through: Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
                               JUDGMENT

09.08.2023

1. What is the source and nature of authority in law available

with a Deputy Commissioner of any district, which in the

present case is district Kathua, to set up a management

committee qua religious place is a question which is being

posed by the petitioner to impugn the Order no.

DCK/SQ/2013-14/945-47 dated 15th October, 2013 passed

by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua whereby he has

constituted a committee of eighteen persons purportedly for

welfare and development as well as management of Mandir

Mata Chanchlo Devi situated in Basholi.

2 OWP no. 1532/2013

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforementioned order and

course of action at the end of the Deputy Commissioner,

Kathua.

3. There is an ancient temple in Basholi town which is known as

Mandir Mata Chanchlo Devi located in khasra no. 160 having

a land measuring 01 kanal and 12 marlas. The presiding

Deity of the temple has a proprietary land vested in it

measuring 235 kanals and 4 marlas spread in 23 khasra

numbers of village Sialog, Basholi and which is enclosed

within a Fort. The ancestral mohtamamship of the said Deity

and its temple and property was vested with one Achru s/o

Nanku and some others. The petitioner is in the line of

ancestral holders of the said mohtamamship as is born from

the Jamabandi of 2001-2002 reflecting the petitioner's father

Khushi Ram s/o Keshav Ram as one of the mohtamims,

others being Ram Chand, Uttam Chand, Dewan Chand.

4. It seems that at different point of time the district revenue

administration of Kathua had intervened with respect to the

administration and management of the aforesaid temple by

installing a person of their liking to be the mohtamim in

which regard appropriate legal proceedings were initiated by

the original mohtamim of the temple which had resulted in

upsetting the installation of an outsider as mohtamim of the

temple.

3 OWP no. 1532/2013

5. By purported reference to the direction of the High Court

given in the year 2001 in a petition-OWP no. 661/2000 , the

Deputy Commissioner, Kathua came to use the said pretext

after more than thirteen years of the so called direction

passed in a petition-OWP no. 661 of 2000 to come up with

the impugned order thereby constituting a committee of

eighteen members which includes SDM Basholi, Tehsildar,

Basholi as Chairman and Vice chairman and other private

individuals as members and MLA, Basholi and officials of

public departments as being ex-officio members.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 15.10.2013

reflects that the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has nowhere

whispered much less citied as to under which provision of law

he has drawn such an authority to intervene in the matter of

administration and management of the temple in reference at

his own discretion notwithstanding the state of affairs of said

temple.

7. State, as being a secular entity under the Constitution of

India, is not supposed to intermeddle in the matters of

religion, religious places and religious affairs unless and until

vested with an express authority in law defining the power

and scope for such an intervention or interference. In the

present case, the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has

purportedly acted upon the so called application of the 4 OWP no. 1532/2013

inhabitants of the surrounding areas of Basohli township

alleging their grievance against the manner in which the

affairs of the temple in reference were being managed by the

mohtamims of the temple in reference. Even if there was any

such representation/application of the concerned inhabitants

of the surrounding villages of Basholi township, then the

Deputy Commissioner, Kathua was supposed to have

reminded them about the provisions of law under which the

said inhabitants could have resorted to for the purpose of

seeking better administration and management of the

religious place or the temple in reference and that provision

being Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which,

by no stretch of reasoning, envisages the Deputy

Commissioner of a District to take upon himself a plenary

authority to take over the administration and management of

a temple and its properties whereas the seat of

mohtamamship qua the particular temple is very much in

existence as is in the case of the present religious place in

reference. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner,

Kathua, which is impugned in the present petition, is bad in

the eyes of law being in conflict with the Constitution of India

and unsustainable and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

8. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed

and the impugned order No. DCK/SQ/2013-14/945-47 dated 5 OWP no. 1532/2013

15th October, 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Kathua is set aside and the committee so formed is declared

to be nonest in the eyes of law. It is the duty of the holders of

office of mohtamamship of the Deity and temple in reference

to ensure the better management and administration of the

temple in reference and its properties.

9. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of along with connected

application(s).

(Rahul Bharti) Judge JAMMU 09.08.2023 NARESH/Secy

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes