THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1202 OF 2010 DATED: 30.12.2010 Between : 1. C.G.V. Baran and others. … Petitioners And Lt. Col Mories .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1202 OF 2010 ORDER : This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 29.11.2006 in WPMP.No.31300 of 2006 in WP.No.24478 of 2006, which reads as under: “Pending further orders, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to prevent the petitioners from rendering daily rituals and pooja in the temple situated in GLR Nos.240 and 241 of Secunderabad Cantonment area.” I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent; and perused the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. W.P.No.24478 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners herein seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in interfering with the administration and management of the temples situated in GLR Nos.240 and 241 which is classified as B3 Lands (original GLR No.239 and classified as A1 Defence land) in Secunderabad Cantonment as arbitrary and illegal. It was pleaded in the writ petition that one Chinna Thambi who was Hawaldar in Regiment No.675 of L Battery of Royal Horse Artillery from Tiruchinapalli had constructed two temples in the year 1894. The said temples are admittedly situated in GLR Nos.240 and 241 of Secunderabad Cantonment area. It was clamed that the land upon which the temples were constructed was given as a grant to Chinna Thambi by the British Army and that from the year 1894 he continued in possession, rendering services in the temples. The petitioners, who claim to be the successors of the said Chinna Thambi, contended that the said temples were being managed and administered by their families for the past more than a century. Alleging that the respondents started preventing the petitioners and their family members from administering and managing the temples in question, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24478 of 2006 in which the above extracted interim order was passed on 29.11.2006. It is pleaded in the contempt case that in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the respondents in the writ petition had initially permitted the petitioners to administer and maintain the temples in question with certain restrictions. However on 15.10.2010 the respondent herein had locked the temple and prevented the petitioners from entering the temple and performing pooja in spite of the fact that the order dated 29.11.2006 has been in force. It is also alleged that the Army people were deployed to watch the temple round the clock and the devotees were prevented from entering the temple area. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, all the allegations made by the petitioners have been denied and it is stated that the temples in question which were admittedly located in the Defence lands were constructed by the local Military Authorities out of Regimental Funds and they were vested in the Officer Commanding the Unit. It is also contended that the day-to-day administration of the temples and maintenance of the structures were being carried out by the Unit in occupation of the land and no private individual was entrusted with the management and administration of the temples at any point of time. It is alleged that the petitioners and some others, having encroached upon the Defence land had erected some dwelling units and started residing therein. In the circumstances, eviction proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971) and the petitioners herein were declared as encroachers and removal of the encroachments was ordered. The petitioners preferred CMA.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, but the same was dismissed. Against the judgment dated 22.7.2006, though the petitioners preferred W.P.No.27217 of 2006 and the same is pending, no interim order has been passed suspending the operation of the judgment in C.M.A.No.59 of 2005. So far as the allegations made in the contempt case is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavit that the temples are being managed out of the Regimental Funds and daily poojas and rituals are being performed regularly. The soldiers, Army personnel, neighbours including the petitioners are being permitted and no restrictions are imposed at any point of time upon the darshan, pooja and rituals in the said temple. Thus it was pleaded that the respondents had never flouted the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24478 of 2006. As could be seen from the pleadings narrated above, the temples in question are located in the Defence land. Though the said fact is not disputed by the petitioners, it is contended that the land was given by the British Army to late Chinna Thambi by way of grant and that he had constructed the temples in question and maintained the same. It is also claimed that the petitioners, being the successors of the founder of the said temples, have been performing various religious functions and poojas according to Vaishnava Siddantham. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that the land which is the subject-matter of W.P.No.27217of 2006 is entirely different from the land covered by the temples in question. However the respondent disputed the claim of the petitioners. It is also relevant to note that the order dated 29.11.2006 which is alleged to have been violated by the respondent is only an interim order and the main writ petition is still pending. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition in December, 2006 itself and the writ petition is in the fair list for hearing. It is also evident from the material placed before this Court that the temples in question have not been closed. Even according to the petitioners they are allowed to visit the temple and do pooja and daily rituals along with other devotees. However their grievance is that they are not allowed to administer and perform the rituals on their own as per their traditions which are claimed to have been performed by their family right from the date of establishment of temples. Whether the petitioners themselves are entitled to maintain the temples and to administer and perform the rituals is a question which requires consideration in the main writ petition. Admittedly the order dated 29.11.2006 is an interim order which was passed without taking into consideration the version of the respondent. Having regard to the fact that the temples in question are situated in GLR Nos.240 and 241 of Secunderabad Cantonment Area which is under the control of Defence and the petitioners suffered an order of eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the same was also confirmed on appeal in CMA.No.59 of 2005, particularly in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners that their predecessor-in-title had constructed the temple and that for the past several years they had been maintaining and administering the temple affairs is seriously in dispute, I do not find any force in the contention that the alleged action of the respondents amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated 29.11.2006. Unless and until the petitioners succeed in the main writ petitions which are already fair-listed, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners are entitled either to manage the temple or perform the rituals as they like without any control by the respondents. Hence the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.12.2010 gbs