Allahabad High Court Directs State To Deposit ₹1.20 Crore For Temple Land Taken For Ram Janm Bhoomi Development Without Payment
The Court noted that while the State disputed the temple’s title by claiming the land was Nazul or government land, it had already taken possession under a registered sale deed and later filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of that deed.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to deposit ₹1.20 crore along with 8% annual interest for temple land taken for Ram Janm Bhoomi development works in Ayodhya without payment of the agreed sale consideration.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Temple, Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking payment of the balance sale consideration under a sale deed executed for part of the temple land at Sugriv Kila in Ayodhya, or in the alternative restoration of possession with reconstruction and damages.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed: “… apparently the authorities have fooled the petitioner to oust them from the said portion of the temple land in the name of sale-deed and now when the payment is being demanded, they have volte-faced their stand by claiming that the said portion of temple land is ‘Nazul’ and/or a Government Land and was not capable of being sold. The whole story seems to be well orchestrated and a product of some fertile mind to somehow delay and postpone the payments of sale consideration to the petitioner merely to take the possession in a jiffy and deny the legitimate payment of sale consideration thereafter”.
The Bench, accordingly, directed “the respondent-State to deposit the sale consideration along with interest @ 8% per annum, as payable to the petitioner on the lapse of 15 days of the sale deed dated 22nd December, 2023 in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit of a Nationalized Bank in the name of the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division)”.
“The said amount shall be deposited with the said Court within four weeks from today and we leave it to the wisdom and discretion of the said learned Court to deal with the said amount by either keeping it subject to the outcome of the pending suit or releasing a part and/or full and/or accrued interest to the petitioner, in case an appropriate application is made in this regard by the petitioner”, the Bench further added.
Advocate Girish Chandra Sinha appeared for the petitioner. Additional Chief Standing Counsel Pankaj Khare appeared for the State respondents.
Background
The dispute concerned Sugriv Kila in Ayodhya, situated adjacent to the Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple, where the temple of Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji is located. The petitioner claimed that the temple land had been recorded in the name of the deity through successive settlements.
According to the petitioner, development-related construction works in Ayodhya connected with the Ram Janm Bhoomi Temple led the authorities to procure land, including a portion of 1512 square metres from the temple land. The petitioner’s case was that the authorities prevailed upon the Sarvarahkar of the temple to execute an MOU and then a sale deed for the said portion.
The petitioner contended that the agreed sale consideration was ₹1,38,44,559, out of which ₹1,20,96,000 towards the cost of land remained unpaid. It was submitted that the authorities promised payment within 15 days through RTGS after execution of the sale deed, but took possession immediately and did not pay the balance amount.
The State resisted the petition by contending that the Sarvarahkar was not authorised to sell the temple property and that the land was Nazul land vested in the government. It also stated that a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed was pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division). The State admitted the agreed sale consideration, but stated that the construction component had been paid and the land cost was not payable.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that there was no denial that the sale deed had been executed and that the land-cost component of ₹1,20,96,000 had not been paid by the authorities.
The Court observed, “It is rather amusing that the respondent-Authorities on one hand is agitating that there is a dispute relating to the title of the land to not pay the part sale consideration, whereas, on the other hand has chosen to be in possession of the said land.”
It accepted the force in the petitioner’s submission that if the State was not convinced about ownership, the property ought to have been reverted. The Court added, “The very fact that the respondents have continued to be in possession of the said property and have subsequently filed a suit seeking cancellation of the said sale deed speak volumes about the conduct of the respondent-authority in the present transaction.”
The Court held that the authorities’ conduct could not be termed fair, proper or reasonable, as they took possession in the name of a sale deed and then refused payment by raising the Nazul land argument.
It further remarked that in a sale transaction, the buyer must inspect title and chain documents before purchase, but the State authorities appeared to have acted in reverse. The Court stated, “The said conduct of the respondents-State Authorities, which ought to be a welfare State and a model party in the sale-purchaser transaction cannot be appreciated by any stretch of imagination.”
The Court stated that although the facts appeared to call for interference, it could not adjudicate the title dispute in writ proceedings without evidence being led in a full trial.
Referring to Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors. (2020) and Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid (2026), the Court noted that actual payment of the entire sale price at the time of execution is not essential for completion of sale.
The Court observed, “The nonpayment of the remaining part of the sale price would not invalidate it, and the remedy would be to recover the balance sale consideration, but not cancellation of the sale deed for non-payment of balance sale consideration.”
Since a civil suit was already pending, the Court directed deposit of the sale consideration with interest instead of deciding title in writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that the State must deposit the sale consideration along with interest @ 8% per annum in an interest-bearing fixed deposit of a nationalised bank in the name of the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division).
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to deposit the sale consideration along with 8% annual interest, payable after lapse of 15 days from the sale deed, within four weeks.
The Trial Court was left free to decide whether to keep the amount subject to the outcome of the pending suit or release part, full, or accrued interest to the petitioner if an appropriate application is made.
The High Court clarified that it had not examined title over the portion of temple land and that the parties were free to produce documents, witnesses and raise permissible contentions before the Civil Court. The Court also directed that the trial be expedited, preferably within one year.
Cause Title: Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:55848-DB)