IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH VAT BILASPUR k K \K (w RxT.‘/PETIT10N (as; No. i371 /2oo9 u,, PETITIONER’ / l. Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Chhattisgarh, Through: General Secretary, Vasudeo Singh Thakuri S/o Late Shri Manrakhan Singh Thakur, aged about 63 yearsi R/o Tiranga ‘Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur (C. G.) VERSUS / l. Nanesh Builder Pvt. Ltd. Through: Director, Surendra Surana, S/o Shri De‘oraj Singh Suranai R/o Baira Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Ameer Lal Sen S/o‘ Ramlal Sen /3. Bharat Bhushan Yadav S/o Nakchheda Ram Yadav Respondent no. 2 & 3 are R/o Gopiapara, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22GOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA n a IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ etition (7) No. 1377 ,of’2009 ‘ rit Petition (227) No; 71378 0f2009 W "PETITION‘ER Bharaj Hindu Mahasabha, hhattsa‘h Cigr Versus : N ild & i ‘ anesh Buer Pvt. Ltd. oiaers " ‘ -‘ RESPONDENTS E O UND TI NS “ (n: on'ble Mr; N.K. Agarwal, 4;} rese : Shri JK Shashtn', Advocate for the petitioner. Pnt ‘Shn" Pramod Kumar Verma Sr. Advocate with Shri: Suinit - ’Verma, Advocate for're‘spondent No 1. Shri Adhiraji Surana, Advbcate for re-sponetNo‘. 2 &‘3. dh L O ' (Passed on 17.01.201l) pplicaton fof taking documents on moms is ordcred a‘praed A or and e se‘is ken‘ o e. y is common order, W.P. (227) Nos. 13709~& 137809 are B th 7/ / eing sposed of. as‘the commonfacts & ssues are involved i bot the petitions. h ‘ Both the etitions hate been med aainst the outer dated ‘ 1.12.200; passed by Board of Revenue in reVision case No. 38 p. ‘ 4/R/6/54/ RNl RN/lA-l2008 and /l4/R/A-6/56/2008, whereby ‘ the revision preferred y the respo‘ndentNo. 1 was aliowed. b 3. Brief facts of the case as projected'by the petitioner is. that : th ‘ e etitioner is ‘a registered body. The suit propert belongs to Shr p y i Hanuman’J andir‘, Raipur an as er Kist, Bandi hetatmi i M d p K , H P 22 N ER 7 ON 's H ; w ORA RDER Ai Sy f th am m n rcord b di i n ' 13 2. p / g (Annexure P/2) Amira La] S/o Ramlal and Santosh S/o Prabhu Lal‘are its Sarwarakar. The suit propeny was sold by respondent ‘ No. 2 & 3 in faVOur ofrespondent No. 1 vide registered sale deed §iawd 25042001.. 'As per the petitioner, it raised an objection” during mutation proceeding preferred by the respondent No. 1 : before thev Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rejected the petitioner’s objection and passed mutation order in favour ofrespondent No. l. The petitioner’s appeal filed before the SDO, Raipur, was also " dismissed vide order dated 30.12.2005. The petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the Collector, Raipur. The same was allowed vide iis order dated 26.122007 (Annexure P/7').V There-against, the revision preferred by th respondent No. l before the Board of Revenue has been allowed ‘ vide order impugned dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P/8) mainly o two grounds that the petitioner has no locus-standi‘to hle an " _ appeal and the order dated 13.03.2001 passed by the SDO, Raipur, in case No. 479-B/121/00—01, by which the above transfer of the spit landhas been held valid, had attained hnality. Hence this petition. Shri Shashtri, learned counsel‘appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of A.A. "Gopalkn'shnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Othersl, would submit that undisputedly the property in dispute is a temple property. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom i AIR 2007 SC-3 162 e n a ‘Boards require to be pmtected and safeguarded by their , Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/employees. Instances aremany where. persons entrusted with the duty ofmanaging and safeguarding the ' v, properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false 7’ claims of ownership or tenancy or adverse possession. This is possible, only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops" ' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or‘f trustees of Boards/Trusts,,and devotees should be vigilant to _ prevent-any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty p of Courts to protect and safeguard the propertiesof religious and charitable institution horn wrongful claims or misapprOpriation. Here in the'instant case, the members of the petitioner are devotees of Lord Hanuman as such the petitioner is “person interested” and the appeal preferred was well within its right. Shri Shashtri further submit that no order has been passed in ease lNo. 479—B/121/00—01 on 30.03.01 holding the transfer in question as valid and the above portion of the order is factually incorrect, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision mainly on the above two untenable grounds and thus, the order passed is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside; On the other hand, Shn' Pramod Vanna and Shri AdhirajgSurana, counsel for the respondents wouki support the order and submit that the Board of Revenue has rightly held thatghe petitioner has no locus-standi to file an appeal and the petih'on deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the ‘ order impugned and records ofthe case The question of locus-vstandi of the petitioner was raised befor the Collector and the Collector atter considering the above objection, passed the order-“in petitioner’s favour vide'ord‘er dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure P/7). 10. The Supreme Court in case of A.A. Gopalkrishnan (Supra) has - observed in‘para 10 of its judgment as under : “10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/ employees. Instances are many‘ where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom /Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by settingiup false claims of ownership or tenancy or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive ~. or active collusion ofthe concerned authorities. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sterniy.‘ _ The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and j. devotees should be' vigilantto prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of Courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institution from wrongful claims or misappropriation.” e ’ 11. In view of above judgment of Supreme 001m, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is a “person interested” and therefore, the appeal preferred by it cannot be said to be incompetent. Further, a bare perusal of Tehsiidar’s order dated 12.02.2001 and note-sheet dated 30.03.2001 passed in revenue , ease No. 479-B/121/00-01 (Vasudev Singh’Thakur v. Hanuman Mandir Trust) would reveal that one report was forwarded by the ‘Tehsildar to the Collector, Raipur, through SDO on 12.0201 and I, the same was again forwardedby the SDO vide order dated 30.03.01, therefore, no order has been passed by any authorities on 30.03.2001 holding’the above transfer valid and therefore, it is incorrect to say that the above order had attained hnality. It ‘ appears that the Board of Revenue had allowed the revision ' mainly on two technical grounds and therefore the order passed ‘ by the Board of Revenue, being not sustainable in law,,deserves to be and is hereby set aside and in the light of aboVe the matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision preferred by mspmdent_No. l aii'esh aher adording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The petitions are accordingly allowed to the above extent. N'o order asto costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 17.02.2011. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal‘r Sahu Judge l3.