CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8957 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 07, 2009 Harbhajan Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1), Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The dispute in the present writ petition concerns the land of one Thakur Dwara. Mahant Bishan Dass claiming himself to be the Mahant of Bairagi Thakur Dwara, filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner, who is a tenant on a land measuring 1 Kanal situated in village Chak Kataru, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The prayer for eviction of the petitioner was made on the ground of non- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8957 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 2 }: payment of rent, which was stated to be Rs.80/-. S.D.M-cum- Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Garshankar, ordered the eviction of the petitioner on 30.4.1998. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Hoshiarpur, who remanded the case back to Assistant Collector for fresh decision. The precise ground which the Assistant Collector was required to consider was to examine the relationship of landlord and tenant and also the competence of Mahant Bishan Dass to file this application for eviction of the petitioner. This order of remand was challenged by way of two appeals before Commissioner, one by the petitioner and another by Mahant Bishan Dass. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed whereas the one filed by Mahant Bishan Dass of Bairagi Thakur Dwara was accepted. This order was impugned by way of revision petition which was also dismissed on 26.7.2005. Through the present writ petition, challenge is made to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Notice of motion was issued and reply has been filed. The main plea advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that Bishan Dass had no locus to file the eviction petition, who also failed to give any proof of his having any authority to initiate proceedings of eviction against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner would further point out that registered society has now been formed to run the affairs of Thakur Dwara and as such, Bishan Dass is neither a Mahant of the Thakur Dwara nor has any concern with the same. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would,however, seriously dispute this fact and would point out to Annexure R5/1, which is a judgment of Sub Judge (IInd Class), CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8957 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 3 }: Garshankar, settling the issue in regard to the status of Bishan Dass as Mahant of Thakur Dwara. This suit was filed by Bairagi Thakur Dwara through Mahant Bishan Dass claiming himself to be the Chella of Mahant Tulsi Dass. On completion of pleadings, one of the issues that was framed was “whether Bishan Dass is Mahant of Thakur Dwara of Chak Katharu.” The Court gave a specific finding that Tulsi Dass had appointed Bishan Dass as Chella and after his death Bishan Dass had become the Mahant of Thakur Dwara. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of Bishan Dass. In this background, the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner in regard to the locus of Mahant Bishan Dass can not be accepted. Mahant Bishan Dass was, thus, competent and had a locus to file an application for eviction of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner claims to have purchased this land from Thakur Dwara and states to have constructed a house over this property. Once the petitioner claims to have got this land for consideration from Mahant Tulsi Dass, who has been succeeded by Mahant Bishan Dass, he can not turn around and challenge the locus of Mahant Bishan Dass to seek his eviction. Apart from this, the petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order, which would call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. January 07, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE