TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv JUDGMENT PER : B.R. GAVAI Leave granted. 2. The appeals are taken up for hearing. 3. Heard Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s). 4. These appeals challenge the order dated 30th May, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5140 of 2023 and the order dated 10th May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2023. 5. It further appears that the appellant is managing the affairs of the appellant-temple known as Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19." 7. It further appears that the Respondent No.5/Manju Devi the Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Hardaspur had filed an application before the District Magistrate, Aligarh for implementation of the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lodha by which the temple was directed to be given in favour of the Gaon Sabha, Hardaspur. In the said proceedings, a report was called for from the Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Aligarh. The Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Aligarh submitted his report on 07.02.2023, which reads thus:- "The suit is under consideration in the court. No proceeding is possible to be conducted because presently a suit in Original Suit No.372/12 titled Satyapal v. State is under consideration/pending in the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Additional District Judge and the report of the Tehsildar have obtained the impugned order. He submits that though a recall application, in view of the liberty granted by this Court, was filed before the Division Bench, even without considering the same, the Division Bench has rejected the same. 10. Shri Atul Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) submits that as per Sections 34 and 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the said Act'), the management of all the public properties within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat vests and belongs to the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that perusal of subsection (2) of Section 34 of the said Act would reveal that all markets and fair or such portion th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainability of the writ petition. 14. We find that the approach of the High Court is totally untenable. When the appellant herein had specifically brought to the notice of the High Court, the order passed by the competent civil court in its appellate jurisdiction and also the report of the Tehsildar/SDM regarding non-exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, the least that was expected of the High Court was to at least refer to it. 15. Apart from that it is a settled law that when a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. When a legal proceeding to be filed by the Gram Sabha ....