“Perhaps analogous to what happened in the Western Ukraine, when the USSR handed over all the Catholic Ukrainian Churches to the Orthodox during the Stalin era. The Orthodox at that point were the sole licensed liturgists for the State. That was their argument -— that the Catholic Church was not the legitimate owner-operator of these churches. But I think that was a usurpation by the State.”
This was a stand alone case making its way through the judicial system for nearly 4 decades before it was finally ruled on by India's Supreme Court. Hardly a simple case of usurpation by the state.
I guess I would understand better if I knew anything about the case, which I admittedly don’t. Am I correct that this involves just one temple?