LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ishwar-chanda-sharma-vs-devendra-kumar-sharma-ors-20250515/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 May 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2014 : 2025 INSC 700
Acts & Sections
Constitution CPC Societies Registration Act
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2014 : 2025 INSC 700
Issue for consideration
The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples facing severe administrative issues of crowd management.
Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XL, R.1 – Appointment of Receiver –Temples – Mathura Region – Temples in grip of legal battles – Appointment of advocates as receivers – A stop-gap measure – The instant suit pending for 25 years – Temple trust running through receivers – No effort to conclude the civil proceedings – The High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2024 held that 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 – Correctness: Held: It is an established fact that the historical temples are old structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support, and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples, Receivers have been appointed for decades now which was originally intended to be a stop-gap temporary measure – It is unfortunate that while appointing Receivers, the concerned Courts are not keeping in mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the two most sacred places for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore, persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas should be appointed as Receivers – This will give true meaning to the High Court’s directions pertaining to persons who are having adequate administrative experience, historical, religious, social background and not Advocates to be appointed as Receivers – The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed to comply with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience, historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. [Paras 23, 24]

Public Interest Litigation – Temple Administration – Administrative issues – Maladministration – Intervenor/Respondent no. 4 apprised that other temples in the belt, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have been facing severe administrative issues of crowd management and it is being administered by a civil judge:

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

Held: This Court is in sesin of the cause qua the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest to decide the issue raised by Respondent no. 4/State of Uttar Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself – Respondent no. 4 has placed on record the proposed scheme for development for the Temple – Upon a perusal of the same and the consequent assessments, it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing parking lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security check posts and other amenities – As observed by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the temple and the consequent development project is crucial to ensure the safety of the pilgrims – The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to incur costs of more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor – However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing the land in question; which was denied by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 – This Court permits the State of Uttar Pradesh to implement the Scheme in its entirety – The Banke Bihari Ji Trust is having fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple – In the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government is permitted to utilize the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire the land proposed – However, the land acquired for the purposes of development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust – The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent and it is modified accordingly. [Paras 19 and 20]

Keywords: Appointment of Receiver · Temples · Mathura Region · Temples in grip of legal battles · Appointment of advocates as receivers · A stop-gap measure · Persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas · Administrative experience, historical, religious, social background · Public Interest Litigation · Temple Administration · Administrative issues · Maladministration · Crowd management · Development of corridor · Acquisition of land from temple funds

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant against the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter “Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter “High Court”), whereby the High Court allowed the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter “Trial Court”), and remanded the matter back for fresh co
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →