IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Smt.Krishna Devi …..Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2776 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 18 days delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.985 of 2011 LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) Dispute in this appeal pertains to the land owned by a Mandir known as ‘Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj’. As per facts on record, at one time, father of the appellant had been performing duties of the Mohatmim of the Mandir. After his death, it appears that the appellant and her mother started exerting their claim over the property in dispute. The private respondents filed a Civil Suit against the appellant with a prayer that a declaration be issued to the effect that the land in dispute belongs to the Mandir and the appellant can not alienate the same. Upon notice, appellant failed to appear before the Court below, she was proceeded ex-parte and on perusal of evidence on record, following finding was given by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Judge) Rewari on 8.4.1997:- “3. I have heard Shri H.R.Dahiya, counsel for the plaintiff and have also gone through the material on the file carefully. PW1 and 2 have stated in so many words that the suit property was donated in favour of the temple which is situated in Rewari City. Previously Shankardas was the priest in this temple. He used to spend all the income of the suit property for the maintenance of the temple. The last priest of the temple was Sheodandas. He solemnized marriage. Thereafter he died. During his life time he did not appoint any disciple to look after the property in question. The present defendant daughter of Sheodandas is in Govt. service and she is leading a family life. She has nothing to do with the property of the temple. Now the defendant was adamant to lease out the suit property and in this way, she wanted to misappropriate the same for her personal use. She has also leased out 4 killa of land out of the suit property without the consent of the 2 LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) proprietor who have donated the suit land in favour of the temple. The defendant has no right to alienate the suit property in any manner. She is not the successor-in-interest of Sheodandas who was the last priest of the temple. 4. Taking into consideration the statements of PWs 1 to 3, it is amply clear that the defendant has nothing to do with the property of the temple. The income of the temple is used for the maintenance of the said temple and the priest of the same is only authorized to manage the property but he cannot alienate the same in any manner i.e. sale or lease. There is nothing on the file to show that defendant has any right in the suit property and moreover she does not bother to contest the present suit despite of the fact that she was served through munadi. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs declaring that the suit property is owned and possessed by the temple and the defendant is restrained to alienate the same in any manner. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.” Decree was passed accordingly. It is noted by the trial Judge that the appellant has nothing to do with the property of the Mandir and accordingly she was restrained from alienating the same. On the basis of judgment and decree, mentioned above, a mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Mandir. However, ownership of the land was shown through the appellant, which we feel is contrary to the finding given by the Civil Court. Once the Court below has come to a conclusion that the appellant has nothing to do with the property of the 3 LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) Mandir, it was not open to the revenue authorities to show the appellant as Mohamim of the same. Matter went in appeal and the Collector vide order dated 5.9.2001 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The case went to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, who vide order dated 17.3.2003, by taking note of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, sanctioned the mutation No.309 in favour of the Mandir ‘Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj’. The appellant went in appeal. Matter was again remanded to consider the effect of mutation earlier entered and the second one, entered after remand by the Collector. The private respondents went in appeal before the Commissioner. Their appeal was accepted by observing as under:- “After hearing counsel for both the sides and on careful perusal of the record of the Courts below it transpires that the Civil Court vide Order dated 8.4.1997 accepted the Mandir as the owner of the suit land. Smt.Asharfi who happens to be the mother of Krishna Devi in her statement recorded before the Civil Court in case Murli versus Devinder has accepted that none of the Mahant’s of the Mandir ever made her sit on the Gaddi, whereas, the property of this Mandir is being taken care off by Murli Manohar Mandir Managing Society. Since the respondent in her Appeal filed before the Distt. Collector did not raise any objection with regard to mutation No.285, thus there appears to be no logic of making an inquiry in the same. Even as per Law the revenue Courts are bound by the decision rendered by the Civil Courts. The Civil Court has held the Mandir to be the owner of the land in dispute. 4 LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) Accordingly the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rewari has rightly sanctioned mutation No.309 of village Chandawas in favour of Mandir Thakur Murli Manohar. Thus, by setting aside the order passed by the Distt. Collector, the Appeal filed by the appellants is ordered to be accepted.” The appellant went in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 4.11.2010. The Financial Commissioner on taking notice of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court on 8.4.1997, opined that it was binding on the revenue authorities and the mutation, contrary to the finding given by the Civil Court, could not have been entered. The appellant filed CWP No.3128 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order on 22.2.2011. It was noticed as under:- “2. Gist of the matter is that Civil Suit No.78 of 24.1.1991 titled ‘Siri Ram & others vs. Smt. Krishna Devi’ was instituted. The suit has been decided vide Judgment dated 8.4.1997 (Annexure P-1). Claim in the suit, as per Annexure P-2 decree, is that the plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that a temple known by the name of ‘Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj’ is owner in possession of the agricultural land detailed in the decree. It is not in dispute that vide impugned orders, the mutation has been sanctioned while recording the temple as the owner of the property. 3. Under the garb of the said issue, learned counsel has tried to raise an issue that petitioner, Krishna Devi is the Mohatmim of the temple and therefore, it has wrongly been recorded in 5 LPA No.985 of 2011(O&M) the order that the temple is being managed by Murli Manohar Mandir Managing Society. 4. The revenue authorities were required to sanction mutation as per Civil Court decree which has been done. Temple has been recorded as owner in the revenue record. The issue as regards the persons who mange the temple, can be raised by the petitioner before appropriate Forum. We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. The judgment passed by the Civil Court on 8.4.1997 is very clear, in which, it has been opined that the Mandir is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was specifically stated in the judgment that the appellant has no connection whatsoever with the land in dispute. If that is so, it was wrong on the part of the revenue authorities to enter her name as Mohatmim in the revenue record when mutation was sanctioned. The said mistake has been rectified vide the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities, which, we feel are perfectly justified. In view of finding given by the Civil Court below, we direct the private respondents to form a Committee as per law, to manage the affairs of the Mandir, if not already formed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 6