Supreme Court Allows State To Use Temple Funds To Acquire Land, Directs Preferential Appointment Of Faith‑Connected Receivers And Urges Expeditious Disposal Of Long‑Pending Temple Suits

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the Special Leave Petition against the Allahabad High Court’s order of 27.08.2024 in Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 concerning appointment of receivers for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan and broader issues of receivership in Mathura‑Vrindavan temples. The appeal challenged the High Court’s direction criticising appointment of practising advocates as receivers and sought to test the legality of a seven‑member committee appointed by the trial court under Order XL CPC; the State of Uttar Pradesh and other parties were permitted to intervene.

The Court allowed the State to implement its Braj development Scheme and modified the High Court’s PIL order to permit the State to utilise temple fixed deposits to acquire the proposed five acres around Banke Bihari Temple, provided the acquired land remained in the name of the deity/Trust. The Court directed the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura to comply with the Allahabad High Court’s remand and to “appoint a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience, historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya.” The bench emphasised that receivership must not become a “new norm” used to prolong litigation and that courts must exercise the power under Order XL with care to prevent defeat of the ends of justice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From perusal of provision of Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C., it is clear that the object of appointing a Receiver is to protect, preserve and manage the property during the pendency of a suit. The words 'to be just and convenient' ... mean the Court may now appoint a Receiver not only in a particular case specified in the old section, but in every case in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so." The bench disposed of the appeal in the terms recorded and directed parties to bear their own costs.

Background The dispute arose from rival elections and management claims over Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti (registered 1957) following elections in April 1999. Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 sought injunctions against interference in temple management; the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act had earlier held one election valid (11.02.2000). After the passing of the original plaintiff, subsequent impleadments and long‑running litigation culminated in the trial court (Mathura) appointing a seven‑member committee/receiver on 28.03.2023 which included practising advocates and the present appellant as a committee member. The High Court, in Contempt proceedings filed by rival sewayats, set aside that order on 27.08.2024 as frustrating Order XL Rule 1 CPC and remitted the matter for fresh consideration; it recorded that “Receivership in the temple town of Mathura has become the new norm” and urged appointment of receivers with religious and administrative affinity rather than practising advocates. The State intervened pressing the public‑interest urgency arising from crowd‑management and safety concerns at Banke Bihari and other temples and placed a corridor development Scheme and cost estimates on record; the State sought permission to use temple funds to acquire land for public safety and infrastructure. The Supreme Court considered canonical authorities on receivership and public interest (including Satyanarayan Banerji and T. Krishnaswamy Chetty principles), noted the High Court and trial court orders, accepted the State’s Scheme subject to land vesting in the deity/Trust, and issued the directions on the qualifications of receivers and expedition of pending suits. The appeal and connected interim applications were disposed accordingly; the Court also had earlier sought and received a district report on the status of temple suits and receivers in Mathura and directed the Principal District Judge to assist in expeditious resolution.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 (2025 INSC 700) Case Title: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the reported judgment] For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR (for Respondent Nos.1–2); Mr. Navin Pahwa, Senior Counsel (for State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No.4); Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.5).