High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CWP-655-2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 20221.Shri. Ramesh Pahadsingh ChaudhariAge- 27 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.2.Shri. Ravindra Chhagan ChaudhariAge- 26 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.3.Shri. Santosh Suklal ChaudhariAge- 24 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.4.Shri. Bharat Jahagya ChaudhariAge- 28 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.5.Shri. Dinesh Aatmaram NaikAge- 26 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.6.Shri. Rohidas Ramkil ChaudhariAge- 27 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar. ...PETITIONERSVERSUS1.Shri. Guru Goraknath Mandir (Mahant)Through Shri. Mahant Yogi Sanjunath Maharaj ...(Orig. Petitioner)2.Olsing Tibdya NaikAge- 35 years, Occ- Agriculture R/o. Toranmal, Tq. Akrani, District- Nandurbar.Bhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{2} CWP-655-20223.Shri. Shrawannath Guru Musalnath Panth(Deleted as per Court Order dated 23.1.2023)4.The Police InspectorMhasavad Police Station.5.The Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar(Shri. Dnyaneshwar Sapkale)Akrani, Tq. Akrani, Dist. Nandurbar,R/o. Tahsil Office, Akrani, Dist. Nandurbar...RESPONDENTS Mr. Yogesh Bolkar, Advocate for petitioners.Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh i/by. Mr. Shaikh Samir Ahmad Safiuddin,Advocate for respondent No. 1.Mr. S.B. Jadhav, APP for State. ....... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] RESERVED ON: 6th MARCH, 2024PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd APRIL, 2024JUDGMENT:1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consentof parties, heard finally.2.This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution ofIndia, takes exception to the judgment and order dated19.04.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Shahada, in Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 2021.3.Facts in brief giving rise to the present petition canbe stated thus:Bhagyawant Punde {3} CWP-655-2022A proposal along with report was submitted byrespondent No. 4, Police Inspector, Mhasavad Police Station,Taluka- Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar to respondent No. 5-Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar stating that there is Gorakshnathtemple situated at Toranmal and on Mahashivratri thousands ofdevotees visit the said temple. Respondent No. 1 was Mahant ofsaid temple. Due to complaints and opposition of villagers,respondent No. 1- Sanjunath Maharaj has gone to MadhyaPradesh. One Mahant namely Shrawannath is performing poojain the temple. There is possibility that Sanjunath Maharaj mayvisit the temple and same may create law and order problem.Hence, a request was made to take necessary action undersection 145 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of said report, respondent No.5 initiated Chapter Case No. 9 of 2021, under section 145 ofCr.P.C.4.After hearing both sides, respondent No. 5 on28.10.2021 passed following order:1.Shri. Sharawannath Guru Musalnathji Mahraj isauthorized to do pooja-archa and management ofGorakshnath Mandir.2.Shri. Mahant Sanjunath Maharaj should not obstructShri. Shrawannath Guru Musalnathji Maharaj in doingpooja-archa.Bhagyawant Punde {4} CWP-655-20223.Petitioners (Party No. 2) shall keep peace and orderin the viilage and to co-ordinate with Shri. ShrawannathGuru Musalnathji Maharaj and to help him inmanagement.5.The first respondent challenged the said order beforelearned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of2021 on various grounds. The Revisional Court allowed therevision and passed following order:ORDER"1. Revision petition stands allowed.2.The impugned order dated 28.10.2021 passed by theExecutive Magistrate/Tahsildar Akrani i.e respondent No.10 (Party No. 5) in Chapter Case No. 9/2021, initiatedunder Section 145 of Cr.P.C., at the instance of PoliceInspector, Mhasavad Police Station stands set aside andquashed.3.The petitioner Shri. Mahant Yogi Sanjunath Maharaj(Sanjunath Chaitram Chaukase), the original party No. 1in the said Chapter Case, be put into possession of thesaid “Gorakhnath Temple Toranmal” as a “Mahant”thereof instead the respondent No. 8 Shrawannath GuruMusalnath Panth, the original party No. 3 in the saidChapter Case.4.If, the petitioner commits any act of misconduct whilefunctioning as a “Mahant” of said Temple, the aggrievedparty is free to move the Assistant Charity Commissioner,Deputy Charity Commissioner or the Joint CharityCommissioner as the case may be, within his jurisdictionthe said Temple falls so as to evict or remove thepetitioner as “Mahant” of that Temple.Bhagyawant Punde {5} CWP-655-20225.An authenticate copy of this order alongwith the recordand proceeding of said Chapter Case No. 9/2021, be sentto the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Akrani,immediately for information and necessary action.6.The Police Inspector, Mhasavad Police Station beinformed of this judgment and order, to see that thisorder is enforced.Petitioners who are the villagers are aggrieved by thisorder.6.Heard learned advocate for petitioners, learnedSenior Advocate for respondent No. 1 and learned APP forrespondent Nos. 4 and 5.7.By relying on the resolution passed by VillagePanchayat, Toranmal, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 isappointed by villagers to perform pooja-archa. 7/12 extractshows that the temple stands at Gut No. 65 and 66, which is aGovernment land and hence, Revisional Court could not haveissued direction to handover the possession of Government landto third person without there being any legal right or title. Dueto misconduct on the part of respondent No. 1, severalcomplaints were lodged against him. Villagers also madecomplaints to Nath Sampraday and respondent No. 1 wassuspended from being priest by Nath Sampraday. GuruShrawannath Maharaj is appointed by Yogiraj and he wasBhagyawant Punde {6} CWP-655-2022performing pooja and after him his son Tirthdas is performingpooja at temple. Therefore, Executive Magistrate was justified inissuing order under section 145 Cr.P.C. permitting Shri.Sharawannath Maharaj to perform pooja. The Revisional Courthas erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction, without therebeing sufficient grounds. Hence, it is prayed that the impugnedorder passed by Revisional Court may be quashed and set asideand the order passed by Executive Magistrate, under section145 Cr.P.C. be maintained.8.Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondentNo. 1 by relying on affidavit in reply submits that the temple isowned by Nath Sampraday and the reference of the temple canbe traced back to Maharashtra State Gazetters, published in1880. There is Sanad entry of Gorakshnath temple in theregister of Cash Alienation debitable “Allowances andAssignments under Treaties and Engagements” in KhandeshCollectorate as they stood on 1st November 1855, as per whichSanad is granted from 1825. Thus, present math is independententity belonging to Nath Sampraday and it is acknowledgedduring British rule. Respondent No. 1 is Sanyasi Yogi of NathSampraday. He was appointed as Mahant of the temple fromBhagyawant Punde {7} CWP-655-2022year 2009 onwards and has taken efforts to develop temple andits premises. He has constructed main temple, dharmshala,security wall near lake, residential complex, big main gate,internal roads and he is in possession of said temple and doingpooja-archa. He submits that sufficient evidence was placedbefore the Executive Magistrate that respondent No. 1 was inpossession of temple since 2009 to 2021 and he is discharginghis duty as priest and has undertaken several developmentworks in the temple. The villagers are trying to take control overthe temple and management and therefore for time and againvillagers made complaints and have passed resolution in respectof temple, to which they have no concern. By relying on RanbirSingh v. Dalbir Singh and others, AIR 2002 SC 1500, he submitsthat the Revisional Court is perfectly justified in passing theimpugned order as the order passed by Executive Magistratewas contrary to section 145 of Cr.P.C.9.Learned APP submits that as per record appropriateorder may be passed.10.Heard learned advocate for petitioners, learnedSenior Advocate for respondent No. 1 and learned APP for Stateat length. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures theretoBhagyawant Punde {8} CWP-655-2022and the impugned order.11.On going through record, prima facie, it appears thatGorakshanath temple belongs to Nath Sampraday andrespondent No. 1 was appointed as priest since year 2009onwards. He has developed the temple and its premises. Thus,prima facie, he is in possession of temple as priest since year2009-2021 and he is appointed as priest by Nath Sampraday.12.It further appears that the villagers are trying togain control of said temple. Admittedly, petitioners are notbelonging to Nath Sampraday. Villagers have no right to passany resolution in respect of management of temple. Though,petitioners are trying to contend that the temple is registeredTrust in respect of Gorakshanath temple in the year 1988,however, there is nothing on record to show that any changereports were submitted in respect of said Trust and any audit isdone. Petitioners are not trustees of said Trust.13.Perusal of order passed by Executive Magistrate,under section 145 Cr.P.C. shows that in the order he has noteddocuments submitted by both the parties and contentions ofboth the parties and has observed that, due to the misconductBhagyawant Punde {9} CWP-655-2022of respondent No. 1, Bhesh Barah Panth Gorakh Dibbi TrustSabha in the presence of 430 Yogeshwar, outcasted respondentNo. 1 from Nath Sampraday and Shri. Sharawannath Maharaj isappointed as priest. After noting this, he has jumped to aconclusion that to maintain law and order situation in Toranmaland to maintain sanctity of Gorakshnath temple, the decisiontaken by villagers in Village Panchayat is proper and, thereforeby invoking powers under section 145 Cr.P.C., he has passed theorder noted (supra).14.It is settled legal position that, “the Court whiledealing with proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C., is mainlyconcern with possession of the property in dispute on the dateof the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within twomonths prior to that date; the Court is not required to decideeither title to the property or right of possession of the same.”[Vide Ranbir Singh (supra)].15.The decision of Executive Magistrate being contraryto the above ratio was legally unsustainable. The ExecutiveMagistrate had no authority under section 145 of Cr.P.C. todispossess respondent No. 1 of the management of temple andBhagyawant Punde {10} CWP-655-2022to decide, who is entitled to maintain the temple. The ExecutiveMagistrate exceeded his jurisdiction while passing order undersection 145 Cr.P.C. Revisional Court is justified in quashing andsetting aside the order passed by Executive Magistrate.Revisional Court has assigned proper reasons while allowing therevision. No case is made out by petitioners to interfere in thesame, in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition beingdevoid of merit is dismissed.Rule is discharged. 16.It is made clear that, observations in this order areprima facie and shall not influence the Civil Court or CharityCommissioner, while deciding the lis between the parties. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]Bhagyawant Punde