New Delhi: Citing allegations of widespread encroachment of temples owing to militancy in the Valley as well as government apathy, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the past two months has directed at least nine prominent shrines, temples and charitable institutions to be handed over to Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate (DC/DM), or asked them to to look into encroachments, ThePrint has found.
These temples and shrines include Shree Bajrang Dev Dharam Dass Ji Mandir in Srinagar, Raghu Nath Ji temple at Barzulla in Srinagar, Asthapan Devraj Bharav situated in Ganderbal, Nagbal Gautam Nag Temple in Anantnag, Thakur Dwara Mandir in Srinagar, and Shiv Temple in Gulmarg.
All of these orders were passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M.A. Chowdhary.
In one such order, pertaining to the management of Shree Bajrang Dev Dharam Dass Ji Mandir, the court noted that the loot of temple properties became rampant after 1990 when the Kashmir Valley came under the onslaught of militancy.
It noted that the minority community which frequented these temples and had interest in their management was made to flee from the valley to save their lives. Consequently, these temples came to be abandoned.
“Taking benefit of this chaotic situation, so-called Mahants and Babas, in connivance with locals, encroached upon the properties of the temples. The government of the day, which was battling with sudden splurge in militancy, remained oblivious to the situation of the temples and its properties,” the court observed on 13 August.
The bench asserted that since most of these temples and their properties were situated in urban areas, and due to their high value, “the vested interests started litigating with each other, some staking their claims on the basis of recorded entries in the revenue record and others on the basis of trust deeds executed by them inter se without any authority of law.”
This isn’t the first time that the high court has looked into the management of temple properties in the Union Territory (UT).
Back in February 2022, then Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal were considering petitions highlighting financial irregularities and large-scale illegalities in maintenance and management of Mata Machail shrine as well as its organisation of annual yatras. At the time, the bench entrusted the management to one of the pre-existing shrine boards in the UT.
At the same time, the court directed the UT government to explore the possibility of bringing a law for better management of charitable and religious institutions and endowments within its jurisdiction.
‘Can’t be squandered by mahants & babas’
One of the most recent orders passed by this HC bench pertains to the land belonging to the Raghu Nath Ji temple at Barzulla.
The court was hearing a batch of five petitions challenging an order passed 23 April 2021 by the DC Srinagar. This order directed expunction of certain entries made in the revenue record of over 159 kanals, which was directed to be handed over to the temple. The petitioners also included the family of detained senior advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom, who was arrested in the murder of advocate Babar Qadri in 2020.
Before the court, the petitioners explained how they came in possession of a part of the land, which originally belonged to the temple. They referred to their grandfather being a tenant, a subsequent compromise between their father and the temple’s mahant, and another sale agreement for more land with another mahant who took over after the previous mahant’s death. After their father’s death, the petitioners claimed to be in possession of a part of the temple land as “protected tenants”.
They now contended that the DC should not have unilaterally directed to remove all encroachments and expunge all illegal entries made in the revenue record, depriving them of these land parcels. The petitioners did not deny that the property actually vests in the Raghu Nath Ji temple, but asserted that they were protected tenants through their agreements with former mahants, and so they cannot be declared encroachers.
The DC had responded saying that the 2021 order was passed to protect the temple’s property from mismanagement and to allow the current mahant to manage its affairs.
In its 13 August order, the court noted that the petitioners were in possession of land parcels belonging to the temple as per revenue papers, but said that these issues are to be adjudicated upon by a competent revenue court. As for the management of the temple properties, it noted that the DC, through the 2021 order, devised a mechanism to be put in place to manage and develop them.
However, the court said that before “such a mechanism can be put in place, the temple properties cannot be allowed to be squandered by so-called Mahants and Babas.”
“It is, thus, high time that the government steps in and takes charge of the temple properties so that these are saved from further encroachments and appropriate action is initiated to free them from encroachments, if any, taken place on such properties,” the bench asserted.
Also Read: ‘Clear discrimination’ — what’s the Ibadat Khana case & what Telangana HC has said now
‘Properties to be in temple name’
The high court then directed the DC, Srinagar to take over the management of the Raghu Nath ji temple and its properties immediately. It said that the DC may either manage himself or through a committee of officers of the revenue and other departments directly responsible to him.
The HC also made it clear that henceforth, there shall be no mutation attested in the name of any mahant or his disciple. The properties shall remain in the name of the temple under the management of district administration, it said.
The DC or the committee appointed by him has to demarcate the entire land belonging to the temple and fix boundaries for its proper identification, besides taking requisite steps for removal of any encroachments.
If the panel finds that there were illegal entries in the revenue record which need to be corrected and people in illegal occupation to be evicted, they can do so while adhering to the Land Revenue Act and other laws, while giving adequate opportunity of being heard to all affected people.
The court made it clear that the committee should put the temple properties to “beneficial use” and that the profits derived from them shall only be used for maintenance of the shrine and for other charitable and religious purposes.
It asserted that this arrangement shall remain in operation till an appropriate mechanism is put in place to manage and develop temple properties or till the UT government comes up with appropriate legislation as suggested by the J&K High Court in the 2022 verdict.
From Kashmiri Pandits to Mahants
Several similar disputes related to the temples in the valley seem to have made their way to the high court, with different parties — from alleged encroachers to mahants — approaching in hope of some relief.
In 2021, the HC was approached by Kashmiri Pandit petitioners, who founded the Asthapan Devraj Bharav Trust for the preservation, maintenance and management of the Hindu shrines in the valley.
Among other things, they were concerned about two important shrines — Asthapan Devraj Bharav situated at Ganderbal in Kashmir, and a temple known as ‘Vidhushe’. They had sought steps to be taken under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997.
They told the court that these temples in Ganderbal were abandoned in the wake of mass migration of the Kashmir Pandits from the valley in 1990. They alleged that the property was now being encroached upon, and sought a direction to the DM, Ganderbal, to preserve, protect and maintain the shrine.
In their response, the Ganderbal additional deputy commissioners told the court that during spot verification, it was found that a shopping structure and a service station were constructed on the land by local pandits through Raj Nath Pandita, and the property had been rented out to Prince Mudasir and Manzoor Ahmed Rather.
In their response, respondents Raj Nath Pandita and Moti Lal Pandita told the court that after these properties were abandoned owing to the Kashmiri Pandit mass migration, they had been managing and looking after the affairs of both the shrines and had rented out a part of the property.
In an order passed 4 July, the bench comprising Justices Kumar and Chowdhary noted that while it cannot determine the disputed facts in the case, the properties in question are covered by the 1997 law.
It then asserted that the Ganderbal DM, in whom migrant properties vest after the 1997 law, “shall immediately take over and protect, preserve and manage both shrines and properties attached thereto”. It also said that the DM shall initiate appropriate steps to ensure that all or any kind of encroachment made is removed within 8 weeks.
As for the lease to the two respondents, the court asserted that since the lease period had expired, it shall not be extended further.
In 2019, the HC was approached by Mahant Subhash Shah, the disciple of Mahant Har Kishen Shah, who represents the Baba Dharam Das Ram Jevan Das Trust. He alleged that land belonging to Thakur Dwara Mandir in Srinagar was sold to several people by the trustees of the Sanatan Dharam Pratap Sabha. He sought a direction to the authorities to correct the revenue records and also probe the squandering of the temple property.
In an order passed 13 August, the same bench directed the DC/DM, Srinagar to look into the petitioner’s grievance and take remedial measures to save the temple’s property.
‘Govt apathy’
In 2018, mahant Prem Jay Mishra of Shree Bajrang Dev Dharam Dass Ji Mandir filed a petition challenging a 2017 decision of the Srinagar DM. Through this order, the DM withdrew permission allowing Jai Ram Dass to perform puja and had instead entrusted the daily affairs to Baba Dharam Dass Ram Jevan Dass Trust.
Mishra had claimed that the temple pujari (priest) had appointed him as Mohatamim of the temple property through a 2015 declaration and therefore, he staked claim over the right to perform puja and other religious rituals.
Before the court, he made it clear that he was not interested in managing the temple property and only wanted the right to perform puja.
The court, in an order passed 13 August, asserted that the temple property vests in the deity and therefore, none of the parties to this petition or anybody else can stake claim.
The court noted that appointment of mahants in the Hindu temples in J&K is “governed by the procedure enumerated in Ailan No.13 dated 3 Asooj 1964 Bikrami notified during Maharaja times”. It pointed out that there have been disputes between various sects of the Sadhu Samaj, each claiming the right to manage the temple properties.
The bench asserted that this temple property has “become a victim of the situation and to some extent apathy of the government”.
The court then directed that the management of the temple and its properties in their entirety shall be taken over by the Srinagar DC to manage them. This, it said, would include making arrangements for performance of daily puja and other religious rituals through a committee of officers of revenue and other departments.
The court asserted that this position will continue till a civil court conclusively determines the rights of the parties, or the UT government comes up with a law as suggested by the court in its 2022 verdict.
Also Read: No SC/ST groups will be excluded — how Supreme Court order treads sub-classification minefield
‘Properties vest in deity’
Allegations of encroachment have not just been made against residents, but also government authorities.
In 2021, Ranjeet Gurkha approached the HC, claiming to be the president of Shri Shri Jagat Amba Sharika Chakreshwar Sanstha, Hariparbat, Srinagar. He claimed to be interested in protection and preservation of temples, including the Shiv temple of Gulmarg, in the valley.
He alleged that a significant portion of the temple was encroached upon by the Municipal Committee of Gulmarg as well as the Gulmarg Development Authority for construction of a tourism enquiry office and lavatory.
While the government authorities denied the allegations, the court on 20 July directed the Baramulla DM to constitute a team of revenue officers headed by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue to demarcate the land vested in and belonging to the temple. The DM was also directed to take over the management of the temple as well as its property.
Another such dispute had been recorded as ‘Dharamshalla’ — a charitable institution — which was a disputed land parcel in Hail Kreeri, Baramulla. The petitioners challenged a 2022 order passed by the Kashmir DC, directing them to hand over possession of the land to Mahant Subhas Shah.
However, the bench opined that neither the petitioners, nor the mahant could claim ownership of the land. It, therefore, directed that the land shall be taken over by the DM/DC Baramulla for its proper management.
A similar order was passed back in July. The same bench had directed the Anantnag DC to assume control over the management of Shri Raghu Nath Mandir and Nagbal Gautam Nag Temple in Anantnag.
It asserted that “the properties vest in the deity and, therefore, are required to be managed in an effective and peaceful manner”. The court ordered that the DC shall also ensure that the properties are restored to the temples after following due process of law.
‘Take a positive call’
In its 2022 verdict, a different HC bench listed down the laws such as the Shri Jagannath Puri Temple Act, Shri Siddhi Vinayak Ganapati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, J&K Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Act, J&K Shri Shiv Khori Shrine Act, J&K Shri Mata Sukrala Devi Shrine, and Shri Mata Bala Sundari Shrine Act providing for better administration of certain special temples,
Citing such laws, it directed the UT government to explore the possibility of a legislation in consonance with these laws enacted for the management and governance of similar shrines in the Union Territory or the country.
“It is also important to note that enactment of statutes separately for each shrine in the Union Territory as a whole may not be an appropriate and feasible exercise. Therefore to have a consolidate and a uniform legislation for all the charitable and religious institutions and endowments within the UT, we feel that it would be more appropriate and better if the government identifies all such institutions in the State/UT as a whole and endeavors to make a common law for all of them if necessary,” it added, asserting that it expects the government “take a positive call without any delay”.
(Edited by Tony Rai)