HC Seeks Explantation From UP Revenue Board On Annuity Of 9 Vrindavan Temples Being Withheld

The court observed that "in this modern age of technology, once the financial year begins, the State should automatically transfer the amount into the account of the temple".

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal's direction came on a petition filed by the Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir.

The temple has sought the release of its annuity as determined under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It said the annuity has been withheld for the last four years by the Mathura district magistrate and the senior treasury officer of Mathura.

The temple in its plea said that an annuity amounting to Rs 9,12,507 for nine temples was withheld due to permission not being granted by the Board of Revenue.

"Letter written by the district magistrate, Mathura, to the special secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, at Lucknow is an indicator to the effect that the officials sitting at Lucknow do not care for the release of annuities to trusts and temples," the court said in a recent order.

The court, after hearing the parties concerned, said that it is "pained to note that temples and trusts have to knock the doors of the court for getting their dues released from the state government, which should have automatically flowed from the treasury of the state into the account of temple".

"It is an annual feature and the officer concerned should have made the necessary arrangement for releasing the annuity of the temple in question," Justice Agarwal observed.

Earlier, the court had directed the commissioner or secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue to file personal affidavit explaining the reasons for not granting permission for the release of the annuity.

According to the board, the reason for withholding the annuity of nine temples was paucity of funds.

The court on this observed, "The funds should have directly flown from the government to the temples without the temples having to approach the court."

Noting that no serious efforts were being made to get the necessary budget sanctioned from the government, the court directed that the commissioner or secretary of the board to be present before it on March 20.