Suhail Khan
SRINAGAR, Aug 14: In yet another significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar ordered the government to take control of the management and properties of the historic Raghunath Ji Temple Estate in Barzulla, Srinagar, following a protracted legal battle over land ownership and tenancy rights.
The court’s decision, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary of which a copy lies with Kashmir Despatch, addresses the grievances of several petitioners who have been involved in a long-standing dispute with the temple’s management.
Case Background
The case in question centers around a 159 kanals (approximately 8 hectares) of land situated in Barzulla, Srinagar, under the ownership of the Raghunath Ji Temple. The petitioners, including elderly residents of Barzulla, claimed that they and their ancestors had been tenants of the temple land for several decades, having entered into various agreements with the temple’s former Mahants (priests). However, in 2021, an order by the Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir directed that entries in the revenue records be expunged and that possession of the disputed land be handed over to the temple, leading to the filing of multiple writ petitions by the affected parties.
Petitioners’ Claims
The petitioners, represented by Mst. Hamida Banoo, Mian Abdul Qayoom, and others, argued that their families had been in possession of the land for generations, initially as tenants and later through agreements with the temple’s Mahants. They contended that in 1960, a revenue court had passed a decree of eviction against their forebears, but a compromise was reached, allowing them to retain possession of a portion of the land. This compromise was formalized by a decree from the City Munsiff, Srinagar, in 1970, which recognized their right to continue occupying the land.
Over the years, the petitioners claimed that they had acquired additional land through agreements with the temple’s Mahants, culminating in their possession of 6 kanals and 10 marlas (approximately 0.35 hectares) of land. However, the petitioners alleged that the temple management, under the leadership of Mahant Hari Om Das, sought to reclaim the entire estate, leading to the current dispute.
Respondents’ Position
The respondents, including the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the temple’s management, argued that the petitioners were encroachers who had taken advantage of the temple’s mismanagement during the period of militancy in Kashmir. They claimed that the land in question had been wrongly recorded in the petitioners’ names and that the petitioners had no legal right to remain on the property.
The respondents further contended that the temple, which had suffered significant damage during the militancy, was in urgent need of protection and proper management. They maintained that the Divisional Commissioner’s order was necessary to safeguard the temple’s assets and to restore the property to its rightful ownership.
High Court’s Findings
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court acknowledged the complexity of the case, particularly the conflicting claims of tenancy and ownership. The court noted that while the petitioners had been in possession of the land for several decades, the exact nature of their tenancy and the legitimacy of their claims required further examination by a competent revenue court.
However, the court emphasized that the petitioners, who had been in “settled possession” of the land for many years, could not be summarily evicted without due process. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to present their case.
In its ruling, the High Court issued several key directives:
Government Control: The Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar was ordered to immediately take over the management of the Raghunath Ji Temple and its properties. The court stipulated that the Deputy Commissioner could either manage the estate directly or through a committee of officials from the revenue and other relevant departments.
Suspension of Mutations: The court ordered that no further mutations (official changes in land ownership records) should be attested in the name of any Mahant or his disciples. The properties would remain under government control until the legal disputes were fully resolved.
Adherence to Legal Procedures: The court stressed the need for the government to initiate any necessary legal actions against the petitioners or other locals occupying the temple’s land. However, such actions must comply with the principles of natural justice, including providing the affected parties with adequate opportunities to be heard.
The High Court’s decision marks a critical intervention in the management of religious properties in the region, particularly those that have been subject to disputes and encroachments. By placing the Raghunath Ji Temple Estate under government control, the court aims to protect the temple’s assets while ensuring that any claims to tenancy or ownership are resolved through due process.
The judgment also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly those involving historical properties with complex ownership histories. As the case moves to the appropriate revenue courts for further adjudication, the High Court’s directives provide a framework for balancing the rights of long-standing tenants with the need to preserve and manage religious properties effectively.
This judgment is likely to have far-reaching consequences for both the petitioners and the temple management, as it redefines the legal landscape of land disputes involving religious estates in the region.
