MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Trial Court's Extension of Status Quo to Protect Worship Rights Deemed Justified: J&K HC

02 October 2024 8:13 PM

By: sayum


Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petitions in Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors. vs. Ishwar Ashram Trust, affirming an interim order allowing devotees to offer prayers at a temple on disputed land. The court ruled that maintaining status quo was necessary to protect the rights of devotees until the final resolution of the ongoing property dispute.

The property in question, measuring approximately 8 kanals, located at Gupt Ganga Nishat Srinagar, was the subject of multiple suits between the petitioners, Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors., and the respondent, Ishwar Ashram Trust. The petitioners claimed ownership, while the respondent trust argued that the land was donated to it by Smt. Kamla Devi, who had constructed a temple on the land.

The trial court, in 1997, had declared the petitioners as owners, but the respondent trust challenged this through multiple suits. After a prolonged legal battle, in 2013, the High Court had ordered the consolidation of suits and directed both parties to maintain status quo, allowing devotees to continue offering prayers at the temple.

The petitioners challenged the ex parte order passed by the trial court on December 30, 2013, which extended the status quo order, arguing that it was passed without hearing their side and that there was no temple on the property at the time of acquisition.

The key issue was whether the trial court’s ex parte order extending the status quo was valid, especially since the applications for similar relief were still pending before the court. The petitioners argued that the interim order was passed without due consideration and should not have been extended without hearing them.

The respondent trust, on the other hand, argued that the temple on the disputed land had historical significance and that the rights of devotees to offer prayers should be protected until the matter was fully adjudicated.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed the petitioners’ challenge. The court found that the trial court’s order extending the interim arrangement was neither illegal nor perverse. The High Court emphasized that the trial court’s discretion in protecting the subject matter of the dispute, including the rights of devotees, was justified, especially in the absence of a decision on the pending interim applications.

The court noted that while there were conflicting claims regarding the construction of the temple, the existence of the temple on the disputed land was not in question. Thus, the status quo needed to be maintained to prevent any disruption to religious practices.

The High Court upheld the status quo order, allowing devotees to continue offering prayers at the temple and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on the interim injunction applications. The court also dismissed the contempt petition related to the case.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors. vs. Ishwar Ashram Trust​.

Latest Legal News