Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Order Date: 18 June 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Applicant Swami Keshwanand, General Secretary of Bharat Sadhu Samaj (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860); Respondents: State of Uttarakhand and respondent No.2 (son of Swami Mahant Rishiwaranand). The applicant sought to quash (i) the judgment dated 14 May 2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar in Criminal Revision No.03 of 2024, which remanded the matter to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate for fresh adjudication; and (ii) the order dated 19 July 2024 of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Yamkeshwar/Kotdwar under Section 145 CrPC directing restoration of possession to respondent No.2, together with a stay of the latter order.
- Background: The dispute concerns the management and possession of Bharat Sadhu Samaj’s Ashram land at Village Jok, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The land was originally leased by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 23 March 1960 for thirty years, later reduced in area and renewed. The society claims ownership; respondent No.2 and his father have acted as caretakers/managers and claim possession.
- Criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were initiated on 7 February 2023 based on a police challan report dated 17 December 2022 alleging a dispute likely to breach peace. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate attached the property on 6 April 2023, appointed the Station House Officer as receiver, and on 19 July 2024 ordered restoration of possession to respondent No.2.
- The applicant argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction because the matter is an internal management dispute of a registered society, not a question of title, and that the Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act is the competent authority.
- The State contended that the proceedings were justified to prevent breach of peace and that the magistrate’s orders were based on the police report.
- Respondent No.2 asserted continuous possession and management, claimed the applicant’s resolutions were forged, and highlighted that the applicant’s own affidavit admitted his father’s caretaker role, lease renewal, and that possession had been entrusted to them.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate correctly found respondent No.2 to be in possession of the Ashram property on 13 December 2022, relying on documentary evidence and the applicant’s admissions.
- No jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity was found in the magistrate’s orders; therefore, the C‑528 application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
- No order as to costs.
- The order dated 19 July 2024 directing possession to be handed over to respondent No.2 is to be complied with forthwith; the Station House Officer, appointed as receiver, must transfer possession accordingly.
- All interim orders are vacated and any pending applications are disposed of.
Topics: Property Dispute; Section 145 CrPC