Allowed

Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan v. Smt. Shashi Mathur Wife of Late N.C. Mathur

Rajasthan HC6 May 2026CW/7478/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging interim orders restraining a society from installing Jain idols or using its facility-area premises for religious purposes. The court held that idol installation alone does not convert public/institutional use into exclusive religious use, quashed both impugned orders, and allowed the petition subject to continued public access.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders dated 25.03.2026 and 02.04.2026 quashed and set aside; parties bound not to exclude general public access per judgment dated 22.05.2015.

Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan Vs Smt. Shashi Mathur… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7478/2026

¶4

Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan, Through Secretary/mantri Suresh Kumar Jain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 402, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Shashi Mathur Wife Of Late N.c. Mathur, Aged About 78 Years, Plot No.509, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶8

Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Indra Circle, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. RK Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. NK Maloo, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitin Jain
		Mr.Kamal Paraswal Mr. Sarvesh Jain
		Mr. Vaibhav Pareek
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Manish Sharma Mr. Ashish Guwalani

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Judgment

¶13

1	Arguments concluded on	27/04/2026
2	Judgment Reserved on	27/04/2026
3	Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced	Full Judgment
4	Pronounced on	06/05/2026

¶14

That the present writ petition has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Civil

(2 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Temporary Injunction Application Case No. 127/2025, whereby the second temporary injunction application moved by the petitioner came to be allowed, has been dismissed.

¶19

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has repeatedly suppressed the material and chequered history of litigation pertaining to the subject matter and has approached the learned civil courts with unclean hands, actuated by ulterior motives. It was further contended that the petitioner is a duly registered society under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, possessing a valid registration certificate as well as a governing constitution. For the sake of brevity, the relevant extract from the constitution of the petitioner-sansthan is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶20

“ 1- Jh egkohj lk/kuk laLFkku egkohj uxj ds v/khuLFk tSu /keZ”kkyk] Lok/;k; “kkyk] okpuky;] ljLorh ¼fo|k½ Hkou] lkeqnkf;d Hkou] vkS’k/kky;] fpfdRlky;] mnklhu vkJe] R;kxho`fr;ksa ds Bgjus dk LFkku] ftuky; vkfn dk fuekZ.k djkuk o laLFkkvksa dks mudh ijEijkxr o vkEuk; ds vuqlkj leqfpr O;oLFkk o budh rFkk muls lacaf/kr py o vpy laifRr dh lqj{kk o lqO;oLFkk djukA

¶21

2- /kkfeZd] mRlo] vuq’Bku lekjksg] laxks’Bh dk vk;kstu o izaca/k djukA

¶22

3- ftuok.kh dk izpkj izlkj izdk”ku o vuqla/kku djuk o djokuk] Nk=o`fRr;kW rFkk vkfFkZd lgk;rk nsukA

¶23

4- leku mnns’; okyh vU; laLFkkvksa ds lnL; cuuk] mudks lnL; cukuk mudks lg;ksx nsukA

¶24

5- Nk=ks] fo/kokvksa] vleFkksZ ,oa o`+)ks dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk nsuk o lkekftd dqjhfr;ksa dk fuokj.k djukA

¶25

6- /;ku dsUnz LFkkfir djukA

¶26

7- uSfrd f”k{kk ,oa dEI;wVj Kku dh tkudkjh nsukA ”

¶27

It was submitted that the genesis of the present matter

¶28

lies in the order dated 03.02.2001, whereby the State Government accorded sanction for allotment of land admeasuring

¶29

726 square yards in favour of the petitioner and 1000 square

(3 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

yards in favour of another society, namely Hadoti Samaj, Jaipur, out of the facility area adjacent to Plot Nos. 508 and 509, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Pursuant thereto, the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “JDA”), after approval by the Building Plan Committee (hereinafter referred to as “BPC”), allotted land admeasuring 591 square meters to the petitioner, followed by execution and registration of the lease deed on 03.08.2001. The said allotment was subsequently challenged by Mahendra Singh and others by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001 before the Division Bench of this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2015 on the basis of a settlement arrived at inter se the parties. In terms of the said settlement, it was agreed that Mahavir Sadhna Sansthan would suitably modify the allotment and that equivalent land admeasuring the same area would be provided adjacent to Plot Nos. 508 and 509 within the same facility area, subject to certain setbacks. It is pertinent to note that the husband of the present respondent was also a party to the said settlement. In furtherance of the judgment dated 22.05.2015, the petitioner society amended its bye-laws on 18.01.2016 with the predominant objective of aligning its functioning with the mandate of the said judgment, and submitted the amended bye-laws to the JDA for issuance of a modified patta . Consequently, a revised patta along with a revised site plan was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.02.2016.

¶34

It was further contended that this Court, vide judgment dated 22.05.2015, categorically upheld the legality of the

(4 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

allotment made in favour of the petitioner society and the action of the JDA in executing the lease deed. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent preferred D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 10326/2016 alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the said judgment, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2016. It was submitted that despite the aforesaid, the respondent, exhibiting a pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation, instituted Civil Suit No. 81/2016 before the Court of Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur, seeking declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the patta . The petitioner herein, in response thereto, preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint; however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2016.

¶39

It was further submitted that the parties have been embroiled in litigation for over a decade without any substantive resolution. In continuation of such conduct, the respondent instituted yet another suit in the year 2023 seeking permanent injunction, alleging that the petitioner had illegally dug a borewell in the setback area adjoining the respondent’s property and had continued such alleged illegal construction despite objections and complaint dated 05.06.2023. In response thereto, the petitioner categorically averred before the learned civil court that the said suit was a gross abuse of the process of law and further contended that it was, in fact, the respondent who had raised constructions in violation of JDA norms, including maintaining an open window towards the petitioner’s allotted land. It was also specifically stated that the petitioner had carried out all

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

(5 of 29)

constructions strictly in compliance with applicable rules and regulations, after obtaining due approval from the JDA on 17.08.2022.

¶44

In the aforesaid backdrop, it was contended that the borewell in question had been dug approximately three months prior to the institution of the suit, to the full knowledge of the respondent and her family members, and that no permission is required under the applicable norms for digging a borewell for domestic use. It was further submitted that, driven by oblique motives, the respondent instituted successive suits seeking temporary injunctions, and vide order dated 25.03.2026, the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, allowed the temporary injunction application, inter alia directing that the petitioner shall not install any idol of the Jain religion and shall not use the suit property for any specific religion.

¶45

It was contended that the learned trial court gravely erred in construing the ‘suit property’ as a ‘community center’, as the same does not fall within such classification. It was further submitted that the allotment letter dated 28.07.2001 does not stipulate that the land in question is to be utilized exclusively as a community center. It was also pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 22.05.2015, had unequivocally held that the allotments made in favour of Hadoti Samaj and Mahavir Sadhna Sansthan were in accordance with law and within the authority of the JDA. The said judgment also considered the definition of ‘public utility purpose’ as envisaged under Rule 6-k of

(6 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. For the sake on convenience the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶50

“(6-K) "Public Utility Purpose " means use of any premises or open land or play ground for a school, college, hostel, dharmashala, public guest house, religious place, gaushala, public park or any other place of public utility excluding use of medical facilities;”

¶51

It was thus contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that installation of Jain idols in a portion of the building does not ipso facto amount to exclusive religious use of the premises. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the amendment of the bye-laws, the governing stipulation is that the facilities provided by the petitioner are to remain open for use by the general public of the locality. In this regard, it was demonstrated that the subject property has been regularly utilized for a variety of activities, including yoga classes conducted between 01.08.2025 and 03.01.2026, as well as for hosting condolence meetings, third-day ceremonies, birthday functions, social gatherings, and diverse religious and cultural events, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or caste.

¶52

In summation, it was contended that by virtue of the judicial pronouncements as well as the governing statutory and contractual framework, the petitioner has been duly authorized to utilize the allotted land and raise construction thereupon for the benefit of the general public, with the predominant objective of advancing the aims and objects of the society as enshrined in its

(7 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

bye-laws. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from manifest illegality inasmuch as they unjustifiably restrict the lawful use of the property by the petitioner, contrary to the settled legal position and the factual matrix on record.

¶57

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and had submitted that the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, inasmuch as it seeks interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 25.03.2026 passed in T.I. Application No. 127/2025, sans considering the fact that the said orders are well-reasoned, based on material available on record, and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked for re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings merely because another view is possible.

¶58

It was further submitted that the land in question was allotted pursuant to the State Government order dated 03.02.2001, followed by allotment, execution of lease deed and issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. The said allotment was subjected to challenge before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 22.05.2015, whereby the allotment was upheld; however, it was categorically directed that the facility area shall not be used exclusively by followers of any particular religion and

(8 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

must remain accessible to all residents. Thus the core issue in the present matter pertains to the nature and permissible use of the land, qua which it was submitted that the land forms part of a facility area meant for institutional/public use, and the said position stands conclusively established from official records of the Jaipur Development Authority obtained under the Right to Information Act, by the respondent.

¶63

Further, it was contended that the inspection report (Annexure R/1) records the purpose of allotment as Dharamshala/Hotel, reflecting institutional use. The office note forming part of official record (Annexure R/4) records the land as “सामुदाययि िेन” (community centre), clearly establishing that the sanctioned use is institutional and not religious. Further, communication dated 21.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-4, JDA (Annexure R/9) categorically clarifies that the sanctioned use of the land is ‘institutional (community hall)’. These official records conclusively demonstrate that the land is not meant for religious purposes.

¶64

In this backdrop, it was submitted that the petitioner had no authority whatsoever to install idols or convert the premises into a place of worship. The installation of idols in a property sanctioned as a community centre/institutional facility is per se impermissible, as it alters the very character of the land; and that the material available on record further establishes active misuse by the petitioner. The approved layout and building plan (Annexure R/5) clearly provides for stilt parking; however, the petitioner has illegally converted the same into a hall, which is

(9 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

evident from the photographs (Annexure R/6). It was apprised to the Court that the competent authority has also taken cognizance of such violations and issued statutory notices to the petitioner (Annexure R/7) recording unauthorized construction and deviation from the sanctioned plan. It is further borne out from the record that on or about 01.08.2025, the petitioner installed idols and commenced religious activities within the premises/property in question, and that the photographs annexed as Annexure R/8 clearly depict installation of idols, including a large idol, along with deployment of bouncers and private security personnel, thereby restricting access to the general public and converting the premises into a controlled religious space. It was stoutly contended that such conduct is in toto inconsistent with the concept of a public facility area and clearly demonstrates misuse of the land.

¶69

Subsequently, it was argued that without prejudice to the above, even assuming arguendo that the petitioner seeks to justify such acts under the guise of the objects of the society, the issue is squarely governed by the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015, which categorically mandates that the facility area cannot be used exclusively by followers of the Jain/particular religion and must remain accessible to all residents of the society concerned. The said judgment, having attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Annexure R/2) and rejection of the clarification application (Annexure R/3), is binding upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner has installed idols exclusively of the Jain religion, and no idols or symbols of any

(10 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

other religion have been installed. Therefore, the selective installation clearly establishes that the premise is being used for exclusive propagation of a particular religion, which is directly contrary to the said judgment. It was further submitted that the revised patta dated 12.02.2016 incorporates a specific condition that the land and facilities shall be used by the general public irrespective of religion, and the petitioner had also furnished an undertaking dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure R/10) agreeing to abide by such conditions. However, the present conduct of the petitioner, involving religious conversion of the premises, installation of idols and restriction of access, is in direct violation of the patta conditions as well as the undertaking, thereby disentitling the petitioner from any equitable relief.

¶74

Upon a meticulous and comprehensive examination of the record, and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court, at this stage, considers it apposite to delineate the following incontrovertible facts qua the prolonged litigation revolving around the property in question:

¶75

S. No.	Title	Issue	Ratio extract reproduc	(rel ed)	evant
1.	DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001 (Decided vide	Filed by one Mahendra Singh, assailing the allotment	“23.We *the* p *have n* *able to* *that the*	*find* *etiti* ot *est* la	*that* *oners* *been* *ablish* *nd in*
	judgment dated 22.05.2015)	made by JDA in favor of the	*dispute* *reserved*	as	*was* *park.*

(11 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

petitioner and	Reliance on the
one Hadoti	members list,
	published by the
Samaj.	JDA in its Booklet,
	in which plot
	Nos.803 to 808
	have been shown as
	park, does not
	establish that the
	land was left for
	park.*In the layout*
	*plan,* as
	*submitted* *and*
	*approved by the*
	*JDA, the land was*
	*admittedly*
	*reserved* as
	*facility,* *which*
	*may include park,*
	*but that it cannot*
	*be said that the*
	*facility area can*
	*only be used as*
	*park, and not for*
	*any* *other*
	*community*
	*purposes.* The
	disputed land was
	never declared as
	park under the
	Rajasthan Public
	Park Act, 1956. The
	“Public Utility
	Purpose”, under
	Rule 6-K of the
	Rules of 1974,
	means use of any
	premises or open
	land or playground
	for a school,
	college, hostel,
	dharamshala, public
	guest house,
	religious place,
	gaushala, public
	park, or any other

(12 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

place of public
utility excluding use
of medical facilities.
The layout plan
submitted by the
Society on
23.11.1983,
delineated the land
as facility area. The
*Building* *Plan* *Committee-II, in* *its 23*^rdmeeting
*dated 12.04.1984,*
*reserved the plot*
*as facility area.*
The building plan of
Mahaveer Nagar has
11 more plots, of
different sizes,
left/reserved for
facility area, and
thus, we do not find
any merit in the
submission that the
land left in plot
Nos.803 to 808, can
be used only as a
park, and for no
other purposes.
27. We may further
observe that the
Mahaver Sadhna
Kendra cannot
usurp the facility
area only for
followers of Jain
religion. Once the
area has been
earmarked as
facility area, it
means that all the
residents of the
colony have a right
to use the facilities
established on such
land. The allotment

(13 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

			of plot measuring
			708.33 sq. yds. to Mahavir Sadhna Kendra, would not allow it exclusive
			use of the plot and its building by the
			Jain Community
			only.
			28.*The Mahavir*
			*Sadhna Kendra,*
			*the* *respondent*
			*No.4, is therefore,*
			*directed to amend*
			*the bye-laws of*
			*the Society, to*
			*allow the use of*
			*their land and*
			*building by the*
			*general* *public,*
			*with predominant*
			*purpose* of
			*propagating the*
			*objects of the*
			*Society,* as
			*provided in the*
			*bye-laws.* *The*
			*property and its*
			*facility should be*
			*allowed to be*
			*used* by *the*
			*residents of the*
			*colony.*The use of
			land for exclusive
			purpose of Jain
			religion, may give
			cause of action to
			any resident of the
			colony to file a civil suit against such use.”
2.	DB Civil	Filed by the	*Indisputably, the*
	Contempt	respondent	*present petitioner*
	Petition No.	herein, qua the	*was not party to* *the proceedings*

(14 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

	10326/2016	disobedience of	and that apart her
	(decided vide order dated 06.09.2016)	the directions enumerated in the order dated 22.05.2015.	petition is in respect of assailing the order impugned dt.22.5.2015, but what is being directed by this Court, if has not been complied with by the concerned respondents under order impugned dt. 22.5.2015, *the* *person who is* *party* to *the* *proceedings may* *avail the remedy.*
3.	Civil Suit No. 81/2016 before the Court of	Instituted by the respondent herein against
	Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur (decided vide order dated 28.06.2016)	the petitioner, for declaration of permanent injunction and cancelation of patta, wherein the petitioner herein, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint.
4.	SB Civil Revision Petition No. 185/2016 (decided vide judgment dated 23.02.2017)	Filed by the petitioner herein, against the order dated 28.09.2016	12. From the above emerging position this Court is at a loss as to how the plaintiff can attack the allotment in the instant civil suit on the basis that her

(15 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

husband’s presence
on 24.04.2007 was
wrongly recorded,
when the Division
Bench of this Court
has already settled
such issue. This
court is of the firm
view that such
controversy cannot
be reopened or
agitated again or
can be made the
basis of a suit, when
the plaintiff
respondent has not
even challenged
such a finding by
the Division Bench
of this court. Thus
the respondent-
plaintiff was not
entitled to file the
instant suit on the
basis of such
alleged non-
presence on
meeting dt
24.4.2007.
15. The directions
given by the
Division Bench
displays that the
allotment and
issuance of lease-
deed to the
petitioner defendant
Mahaveer Sadhna
Kendra, was held to
be made in
accordance with
law, but it was
directed that use of
the land and
building constructed
by the society had

(16 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

to be primarily for
general public with
participation of the
residents of the
colony. The Hon’ble
Division Bench did
not pass directions
as to the inclusion
or non-inclusion of
members of any
sect or religion, as
members of the
petitioner society.
Thus, the plaintiff’s
allegation that non
inclusion of the
plaintiff or any
member of the
colony as member
of the petitioner
society, was
infringement of the
Division Bench
judgment providing
the plaintiff cause of
action to institute
the instant suit,
fails, and on this
count no cause of
action can be said
to have accrued to
the plaintiff to
institute the instant
suit.
16. The next ground
raised is the
assertion in the
plaint that the
defendant petitioner
was directed to
amend the bye-laws
and the defendant
has not amend the
bye-laws to include
participation by
members who are

(17 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

not follower of Lord
Mahaveer in the
affairs of defendant
petitioner. To
evaluate such
assertion, para 28
of the Division
Bench judgment in
verbatim deserved
to be mentioned :-
“28. The Mahavir
Sadhna Kendra, the
respondent No.4, is,
therefore, directed
to amend the bye-
laws of the Society,
to allow the use of
their land and
building by the
general public, with
predominant purpose of
propagating the
objects of the
Society, as provided
in the bye-laws. The
property and its
facility should be
allowed to be used
by the residents of
the colony. The use
of land for exclusive
purpose of Jain
religion, may give
cause of action to
any resident of the
colony to file a civil
suit against such
use.”.
“17. The above
para also discloses
that the Division
Bench only passed
direction with
respect to use of
the land and

(18 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

building under the
patta held by the
defendant petitioner
society. Directions
were not issued
with respect to the
membership of the
petitioner defendant
society. The right to
file a civil suit was
given only in case of
breach in user of
the land and
building by the
defendant society.
*The plaintiff has*
*nowhere asserted*
*in the plaint that*
*the* *defendant* *society is using* *the land building* *contrary to the* *directions given* *by the Division* *Bench.* *The*
*plaintiff* *has* *categorically* *asserted in the*
*plaint itself that*
no *permanent*
*building has been*
*constructed upon*
*the land and in*
*absence of such*
*construction,*
*question of user*
*contrary to the*
*directions did not*
*arise at all.*Thus
even if such plaint
averments are
taken in its face
value and for the
sake of arguments
urging to be true at
the stage seeking

(19 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

			direction u/O.7 R.11 CPC the same did not provide the plaintiff cause of action to institute a suit for declaration and injunction as claimed
5.	Civil Suit No. 72/2023 before	Instituted by the respondent	.
	the Court of	herein, for
	Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I	permanent injunction against the plaintiff; alleging that the plaintiff had illegally dug a borewell in the setback area, adjoining the respondent’s property.
6.	Temporary Injunction Application No. 56/2023, before the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Metropolitan –I	Moved by the respondent herein, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. (Dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2023)	izkFkhZ;k vf/koDrk }kjk nkSjkus cgl ;g dFku fd;k fd vizkFkhZ us lsVcSd ,fj;k ij cksjoSy dk fuekZ.k djok;k gS tks fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-05-2015 ds foijhr gSA blds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ vf/koDrk }kjk dFku fd;k fd fookfnr lEifRr ij tks lsVcSd NksMk x;k gS oks vksiu Vw LdkbZ NksMk x;k gS] cksjoSy djok;k tkuk vLFkkbZ o LFkkbZ fuekZ.k esa lfEefyr ugha gSAblds laca/k esa jktLFkku Hkou fofu;e 2020 ds fu;e 10-8¼[k½ esa viuh cgl ds leFkZu n”kkZ;k x;kA bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk er ;g gS fd jktLFkku Hkou fuekZ.k fofu;e 2020 ds fu;e 10-8 ¼[k½ esa ;g micaf/kr gS fd dqvka vkSj dqa, dh lajpuk

(20 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

ftudh mapkbZ 2-1 ehVj ls
vf/kd ugha gks] dks vkPNknu
ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mijksDr
fu;e esa oksjcSy] dq, vFkok
blls lacaf/kr fuekZ.k dks
vkPNknu fuekZ.k ugha ekuk gSA
izkFkZuk i= esa cksjoSy dh mapkbZ
2-1 ehVj ls vf/kd gksus ds
rF; vafdr ugha fd, gSaA
vkxs ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd
vizkFkhZ laLFkk }kjk tokc
ftldk dksbZ [kaMu izkFkhZ }kjk
ugha fd;k x;k gSA oksjCkSy dk
fuekZ.k pkj ekg iwoZ fd, tkus
ds rF; vafdr fd, gSA ijar
q bl vof/k ds nkSjku izkFkhZ;k }
kjk dksbZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh t;iqj
fodkl izkf/kdj.k vFkok lacaf/kr
izkf/kdj.k esa dh xbZ gks ,sls
rF; izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr
ugha gSA t;iqj fodkl
izkf/kdj.k }kjk fn;k x;k
uksfVl fnukad 06-07-2023
Hkw[akM la[;k 509 ds lkeus
fuekZ.k lkexzh j[ks tkus ls
lacaf/kr gSA mijksDr uksfVl esa
t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk
mudks vuqeksfnr ekufp= ds
foijhr tkdj fuekZ.k dk;Z fd,
tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ rF;
vafdr ugha gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk
izLrqr U;kf;d n`’Vkar gLrxr
izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu
gksus ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k
ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA
izkFkhZ;k }kjk dsoy ek=
d;kl@ laHkkoukvksa ds vk/kkj
ij fuekZ.k dks leqnk;@lekt
fo”ks’k dk eafnj crkrs gq, ;g
vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i=
izLrqr fd;k tkuk izFken`’r;k
nf”kZr gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk
fIyaFk ysoy dh mapkbZ Lohd`fr
vFkok fu;eksa ds foijhr fd,
tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost
is”k ugha fd, lkFk gh bldh
f”kdk;r t;iqj fodkl
izkf/kdj.k esa dh xbZ gks ,sls Hkh
dksbZ nLrkost is”k ugha fd, gSaA
vr% mijksDr izFke n`’r;k
ekeyk izkFkhZ;k vius i{k esa
lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgha gSA
¼2½ lfo/kk dk lUryu o ¼3½
q q viw.kZuh; {kfr%&

(21 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

			7- lqfo/kk dh n`f’V ls o rF;ksa<br>dh iqujko`fr ls fojr jgus ds fy, mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA pwafd mijksDr izFke n`’V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ;k Lo;a ds<br>i{k esa lkfcr djus esa foQy<br>jgha gS bl otg ls izFke n`’V;k ekeyk dk fcanq izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSAlkFk gh ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc izkFkZuk i= esa ;g rF; vafdr fd, x, gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z lkekU; tu iz;ksx dh jkf”k ls fuekZ.k djok;k tk jgk gS ,oa lsVcSd Hkh vuqeksfnr ekufp= ls vf/kd NksM+k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn izkFkhZ ds i{k esa vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= dk vuqrks’k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rks vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ;k dh rqyuk esa vf/kd vlqfo/kk ,oa ,slh viw.kZuh; {kfr gksxh ftldh /ku ds :i esa iwfrZ ugha dh tk ldrh vr% mijksDr nksuksa fcanq lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr Hkh izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd, tkrs gSA 8- pwfad izdj.k esa izFken`’V~;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr laca/kh fcUnqvksa dks izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= ckcr~ vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk s s S
			vLohdkj fd, tku ;kX; gA
7.	Civil Misc. Appeal No.	Preferred by the respondent	13- vizkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh mtz jgk gS fd tsMh, }kjk Lohd`r uD”ks esa 22 fiyj gh gSa tcfd vizkFkhZ
	12/2023 before	assailing the	laLFkku }kjk 34 fiyj dk voS/k Z Ss S
	the Additional	order dated	fuek.k ekd ij fd;k x;k gA vizkFkhZ us Lohd`r ls vf/kd
	District Judge	20.07.2023.	fiyjksa dk fuekZ.k eafnj cukus h hh s f S
	No. 2 Jaipur Metropolitan- I	(Dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2023 )	d cnu;r l d;k g] bl laca/k esa ekSds ds QksVksxzkQl~ Hkh vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] mu QksVksxzkQl~ dks ns[ks tkus ls izFken`’V;k bl Lrj ij ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk vkoafVr {ks= esa eafnj dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk gksA tgka rd izkFkhZ;k dk ;g dFku fd vizkFkhZ }kjk LVhYV ikfdZax dk fuekZ.k 1-3 QhV dh mapkbZ ds LFkku ij 1-5 QhV dh

(22 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

mapkbZ ij fd;k x;k gS rFkk
LVhYV ikfdZax ds vukf/kdr :i
` ls 12 fiYyj uD”ks ds foijhr
cuk fn;s x;s gksa] ftlls mDr
LVhYV ikfdaZx ds dke ugha
vk;sxhA vizkFkhZ }kjk LVhYV
ikfdaZx dk fuekZ.k fu/kkZfjr
mapkbZ ls vf/kd fd;s tkus ds
laca/k esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk dksbZ
rduhdh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; ds
le{k bl Lrj ij izLrqr ugha
dh gSA tgka rd vizkFkhZ }kjk
vkoafVr {ks= esa fu;eksa ds
foijhr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ds
laca/k esa izkfFkZ;k }kjk tsMh, esa
f”kdk;r fd;s tkus rFkk
tsMh, }kjk dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus
dk laca/k gS] bl laca/k esa
i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkosatksa
ls tsMh, }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fo:}
fu;eksa ds foijhr fd;s x;s
voS/k fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa dh xbZ
f”kdk;r ij tsMh, dh uksV”khV
fnukafdr 27-07-2023 ds vuqlkj
mDr f”kdk;r ij tsMh, }kjk
mik;qDr tksu&4 tfoizk] t;iqj
ds dk;kZy; ls bl laca/k esa sZ Z Ss
fjikV ryc dh xb gAtMh,
}kjk vizkFkhZ dks izkfFkZ;k }kjk dh
xbZ f”kdk;r fnukad 06-07-2023
dks Hkw[k.M ds lkeus fuekZ.k
lkexzh j[ks tkus ds laca/k esa
uksfVl gS] uk fd voS/k fuekZ.k
fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA bl Z
izdkj bl Lrj ij vizkFkh }kjk
vkoafVr”kqnk Hkw[k.M ij voS/k
fuekZ.k fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa
dksbZ tsMh, dh fjiksVZ i=koyh
ij ugha gSA
14- izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr
U;kf;d n`’Vkar,vkbZvkj 1985
nsgyh 293esa ekeuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk E;wfufliy
ck;ykWt ds fo:} fd;s x;s
voS/k fuekZ.k ds fo:} iMkSlh
dks fuekZ.k jksds tkus ds laca/k esa
fu’ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh gksuk ekuk gSA U;kf;d
n`’Vkarvkj,yvkj 1988¼1½ jkt-
850] vkj,yvkj 1988¼2½ jkt-
871 ,oa MCY;w,ylh 2002¼2½
jkt- 362esa ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr
fd;k x;k gS fd Vh-vkbZ dk

(23 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

||||fuLrkj.k djrs le; U;k;ky;
dks i{kdkjku ds e/; fooknksa
dk vafre :i ls fuLrkj.k ugha
fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA tgka
i{kdkjku ds e/; xaHkhj fookn
fo|eku gks] ogka okn ds vafre
fuLrkj.k rd ekSds dh
;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kk tkuk
vko”;d gSA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr
fl}kUrksa ls ;g U;k;ky; iw.kZ
lger gS] ijUrq mDr U;kf;d
n’Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ i{k dks dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha djrs gSA 15- mijksDr foospukuqlkj fo}ku fopkj.k }kjk izFken’V;k
ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa
viwj.kh;
{kfr ds fcUnq
vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa
cuuk ugha ik;s tkus esa fdlh
izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd ,oa
rkfRod =qfV ugha dh gS ,oa
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k
x;k fu’d’kZ iw.kZr% fof/kd ,oa
U;k;ksfpr gS] ftl fu’d’kZ esa
gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ
U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj ugha gksus ds
dkj.k vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ;k dh
vksj ls izLrqr vihy vLohdkj| |---|---|---|---| ||||dj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA| |8.|II
Temporary
Injunction|Moved by the
respondent|5- gLrxr f}rh; vLFkkbZ
fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e
ls izkFkhZ dk eq[;r% ;g dFku| ||Application (CIS|herein; without|
jgk fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 dks
U s s s| ||No. 446/2025)|impleading JDA|lkek; vketu d mi;kx grq
lkeqnkf;d dsanz ds fy, vkoafVr| ||for grant of
mandatory and
temporary
injunction|as a party
respondent,
therein.
(Allowed vide
order
dated
25.03.2026)|Hkwfe ij Lohd`r ekufp=ksa ds
foijhr fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ
djok;k tk pqdk gS ,oa vizkFkhZ
la-1 }kjk mDr Hkwfe dks lkekU;
vketu ds mi;ksx esa ugha
ysdj ek= tSu /keZ ds
vuq;kf;;ksa gsrq mi;ksx esa fy;k
tk jgk gS ftlds [kaMu djrs
gq, vizkFkhZ dk eq[;r% ;g rdZ
jgk fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vuqeksfnr
ekufp=ksa ds vuq:i fuekZ.k dk;Z
djok;k x;k gS ,oa mDr Hkwfe
dk mi;ksx fdlh Hkh izdkj ls
fdlh /keZ fo”ks’k@ tSu /keZ dk
izpkj izlkj djus ds fy, ugha
fd;k tk jgk gS ,oa laLFkk ds|

(24 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

			mnns”;ksa ds vuq:i lkeqnkf;d dasnz ds fy, vkoafVr Hkwfe dks laLFkk fo/kku i= esa fu/kkZfjr mnns”;ksa ds vuq:i gh mi;ksx miHkksx esa fy;k tk jgk gSA tgkW ij orZeku esa ;ksx dsanz lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gS ftlesa lkekU; vketu }kjk fgLlk fy;k tk jgk gSA i=koyh ij ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd<br>egkohj lk/kuk dsanz dks tsMh, }<br>kjk lkeqnkf;d dasnz @/keZ”kkyk<br>ds fy, oknxzLr Hkwfe vkoafVr<br>dh xbZ gS ,oa ftl ij<br>tsMh, }kjk vuqeksfnr ekufp=ksa<br>ds vuq:i mDr Hkwfe dk<br>mi;ksx ekuuh; jkt- mPp<br>U;k;ky; ds vkns”k fnukad 22-<br>05-2015 ds vuq:i lkekU;<br>vketuksa ds mi;ksx esa fy;s<br>tkus ds “krZ ds lkFk la”kksf/kr<br>lkbZV Iyku o fuekZ.k Lohd`fr tkjh dh xbZA 9- lqfo/kk dh n`f’V ls o rF;ksa<br>dh iqujko`fr ls dh jgus ds fy, mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA pwafd izFke n`’V;k<br>ekeyk izkFkhZ vius i{k esa lkfcr<br>djus esa lQy jgk gS ,oa<br>izdj.k esa vkoafVr Hkwfe vketu<br>ds iz;kstukFkZ gsrq vkoafVr dh<br>xbZ gS ,sls esa ;fn lqfo/kk dk<br>larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr ;fn<br>izkFkhZ esa foi{k esa r; fd, tkrs<br>gS rks izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ rqyuk esa<br>vf/kd vlqfo/kk esa viw.kZuh;<br>{kfr dkfjr gksxhA vr%<br>mi;qZDr izFke n`’V;k ekeys ds fcanq ds izdk”k esa mi;ZqDr nksuksa fcanq Hkh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd, tkrs gSA 10- pwafd izdj.k esa izFken`’V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr laca/kh fcanqvksa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fuEu izdkj ls
			Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
9.	Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11/2026 before	Preferred by the petitioner herein, against	2 o 3 lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viwrZuh; {kfr %& izdj.k esa tgkW rd mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk laca/k gSApwafd izFke n`’V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa

(25 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

the Additional District Judge,	the order dated 25.03.2026.	fofu”pr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fookfnr vkoafVr Hkwfe esa vizkFkhZx.k dks fdlh /keZ
No.1 Jaipur Metropolitan –	(dismissed vide order dated	fo”ks’k dh uwfrZ;ka LFkkfir djus ls ugha jksds tkus o fookfnr Hkwfe dks /keZ fo”ks’k ds
I, Jaipur	02.04.2026)	mi;ksx&miHkksx esa ysus ls ugha jksds tkus dh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds fo:} vf/kd vlqfo/kk o viwj.kh; {kfr gksxhAvr% mDr nksuksa fcUnq Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lgh :i ls izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa r; fd, gSA mijksDr foospu ds vuqpkj esjs fouez er esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us rhuksa fcUnq lgh :i ls fofuf”p fd, x, gSA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy lkjghu ik;h tkus ls vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶136

(Emphasis supplied)

¶137

Having undertaken a scrupulous examination of the record and an assiduous scrutiny of the protracted litigation pertaining to the matter at hand, this Court is of the considered view that the issues arising for its determination may be delineated as whether the learned trial courts have committed a jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality in passing the impugned orders dated 25.03.2026 and 02.04.2026; whether the nature and permissible use of the land in question, being part of a ‘facility area’, permits its utilization for community purpose albeit, there is installation of idols; whether the petitioner has acted in violation of the obligatory judgment dated 22.05.2015, the amended bye-laws dated 18.01.2016, and the revised patta dated 12.02.2016; and whether the installation of Jain idols and the alleged user of the premises constitutes exclusive religious use, or remains within the ambit of permissible public/institutional use.

(26 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

The foundational dispute pertains to the nature and permissible use of the land allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the State Government order dated 03.02.2001. It is undisputed that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner attained finality in terms of the judgment dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Division Bench, wherein the allotment was upheld. However, a significant rider was imposed that the ‘facility area’ in question shall not be used exclusively by followers of any particular religion and must remain accessible to all residents. This Court further observes that the petitioner, in furtherance of the said judgment, obtained a revised patta dated 12.02.2016 and amended its bye-laws on 18.01.2016 . The material placed on record reflects that the subject property has been utilized for multiple community-oriented purposes, including yoga classes being conducted between 01.08.2025 and 03.01.2026, as well as for social, cultural and community gatherings, conducting condolence meetings etc. without discrimination any discrimination on the basis of religion or caste.

¶142

The contention of the respondent who is not even appearing in the representational capacity qua bunch of aggrieved people, as the property in question is locate din a society and even momentarily it cannot be assumed that the respondent herein, shall be sole aggrieved persons, and is herself having construction which is in violation to the governing JDA guidelines qua the set-backs of a property, that the installation of idols ipso facto alters the nature of the land to an exclusive religious use does not appear to be borne out from the entirety of the record,

(27 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

as no documents/complaints of what so ever nature against the petitioners herein is placed on record. Mere installation of idols in a part of the premises, in absence of cogent material demonstrating complete exclusion of the general public, cannot be conclusively held to amount to exclusive religious conversion of the property. India is a country known for its diversity and peaceful survival of all the communities, thus, there are various sites which, though possess religious attributes, but are widely recognized as public, cultural and tourist spaces, accessible to persons of all faiths and frequently utilized for purposes extending beyond mere religious worship. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the determinative test is not the mere existence of idols or religious symbols, but the dominant purpose and actual usage of the property.

¶147

At this juncture, it is apposite to note that equity leans in favour of substance over form, and the true test lies in the dominant purpose of usage rather than isolated acts. The record indicates that the dominant use of the premises continues to be for public and community purposes. In the present case, this Court finds that the learned trial courts have proceeded on an erroneous premise by equating the ‘facility area’ with a ‘community centre’ in a restrictive sense, and by presuming that installation of idols necessarily leads to exclusive religious use, without appreciating the broader factual matrix and the continued public usage of the premises. Withal, it can be jot down that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and misinterpretation of the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015. The

(28 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

said judgment does not impose an absolute embargo on any religious activity, but only prohibits exclusive use by followers of a particular religion.

¶152

CONCLUSION

¶153

In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the impugned orders dated 25.03.2026 and 02.04.2026 are vitiated by perversity and misapplication of law; that the learned trial courts have failed to appreciate the true import of the judgment dated 22.05.2015 and the nature of permissible use of the land; that the material on record does not establish exclusive religious use so as to warrant the restrictions imposed; that the nature of allotment is relevant, but must be read with actual usage, as installation of idols alone is not determinative unless it leads to exclusive religious appropriation; that the correct test is whether the property continues to serve public/community purpose, which aligns with your finding regarding yoga classes, public functions, and open access; that courts must avoid mechanical interpretation and instead adopt a holistic, purposive approach; that the construction as made by the petitioner qua Saraswati Bhawan, Jinalaya, Yoga Center-hall, pustakalya, is in abidance of the building plan, as approved by the JDA on 17.08.2022, and is open for general public; that the JDA was not impleaded as a party in the injunction suits by the respondent herein, despite the fact that the said authority is a proper party; that the learned trial courts, whilst considering the injunction applications have manifestly acted ultra vires to the jurisdiction, as they have granted directions restraining the petitioner from

(29 of 29)

[2026:RJ-JP:18630]

[CW-7478/2026]

installing any idol or using the premise for Jain religion, albeit it virtually resulted in deciding of suit whilst passing interim orders, and the same being beyond the prayers as asked therein; that the respondent herein has approached the Court with unclean hands, and is rather just one out of umpteen people who reside in the same vicinity of the property in question, and have never made any complaints against the petitioner, as no such material is placed on record.

¶158

Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be, and is hereby allowed , and the impugned orders dated 02.04.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur in CMA No. 11/2026 and order dated 25.03.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur in Temporary Injunction Application No. 127/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶159

The parties shall, however, remain bound by the condition that the premises shall not be used in a manner that excludes access to the general public or converts the facility area into an exclusively religious domain, in terms of the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015.

¶160

No order are made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.

¶161

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶162

Preeti Asopa

Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan v. Smt. Shashi Mathur Wife of Late N.C. Mathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan v. Smt. Shashi Mathur Wife of Late N.C. Mathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manvi Private Industrial Training Institute Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S J.J. Engineering Vs Union of India

Rajasthan Sarvodaya Sansthan Vs the Khadi and Village Industries Commission

M/S Maa Karni Associate Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaipur Dairy Saras Dugdh Vikreta Sangh All Rajasthan (S.No. F/Rtu 9-2013) Vs State of Rajasthan

Gyan Singh S/O Late Shri Ladu Singh Vs Smt. Sarju Devi W/O Shri Mahendra Singh