COCP No.860 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.860 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 15, 2009. Gurcharan Dass ...Petitioner(s) v. Romila Dubey & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mrs. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the respondent No.4. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM Nos.26672-CII & 27137-CII of 2009 Civil Misc. applications are allowed subject to just exceptions. COCP No.860 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 for appointment as Mahant of Dera Akhara, Panchayati Khurd, Heera Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala. Proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and vide order dated 6.2.1998, receiver was appointed on the land of the Dera. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Patiala who vide order dated 6.12.1999 set aside COCP No.860 of 2009 -: 2 :- the order dated 6.2.1998. However, the appointment of receiver who remained in possession was allowed to continue vide order dated 5.5.2006 in Crl. Rev. No.1527 of 1999. It is relevant to point out here that a suit for declaration filed by Harvinder Dass/respondent No.4 was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 24.3.2003. The Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 13.1.2006 accepted the appeal and held that Harvinder Dass was Mahant of the Akhara and was in possession of the Dera and its properties and the petitioner was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent No.4 over the suit property. The petitioner filed RSA No.1188 of 2006 in this Court and this Court vide order dated 31.3.2006 while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order:- “It is also pointed out that the suit property is being maintained by the Receiver, who is Tehsildar. So, at this stage, no order is being passed regarding management of the land.” The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, respondent No.1 passed an order at the back of the petitioner and appointed respondent No.4 as Mahant of the Dera. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide Annexure P-4 (17.10.2008), an order was issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 directing him to hand over possession of the land of the Dera to respondent No.4 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 5.12.2008 informing the Sub Divisional Magistrate that his office has no objection in returning possession of the suit land to respondent COCP No.860 of 2009 -: 3 :- No.4 who has been appointed as Mahant by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. It was also stated in the aforesaid order that the court order be not violated. Respondent No.3 handed over the possession to respondent No.4 on 8.12.2008 and, thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents have deliberately avoided the status quo order of the High Court dated 31.3.2006 and 5.5.2006 vide which the receiver was continuing and, thus, the respondents were guilty of committing contempt of this court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of counter affidavit of respondents No.3 and 4 were filed wherein it has been submitted that the High Court orders dated 31.3.2006 and 5.5.2006 clearly show that neither any affirmative nor any prohibitory directions were passed against the respondents. It was further submitted that respondent No.4 has been held to be a Mahant of the Dera and since the State of Punjab had appointed respondent No.4 as Mahant of the Dera in question vide order Annexure P-4, there was no illegality by handing over the possession and management of the aforesaid Dera to the said respondent. It is the further case of the respondents that till date, the operation of the order dated 17.10.2008 of the State of Punjab (Annexure P-4) and judgment dated 13.3.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala has not been stayed and therefore, the petition is without any merit and is required to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this petition. From the facts as narrated above, it is clearly made out that at no stage this Court had passed any restraint order against the respondents COCP No.860 of 2009 -: 4 :- No.1 to 3 from handing over possession of the property in dispute to respondent No.4, neither the judgment dated 13.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala in favour of respondent No.4 has been stayed. Not only this, vide order dated 5.5.2006 passed in Crl. Revision No.1527 of 1999, this Court has not passed any order regarding restraining the handing over of the possession to respondent No.4. Moreover, vide order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4 has been appointed as Mahant of the Dera in question and operation of the aforesaid order has not been stayed by any court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, in my view, by handing over possession of the Dera in question to respondent No.4, respondents No.1 to 3 have not violated any order passed by this Court. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Rule discharged. December 15, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge