C.R.No.2322 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2322 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.3.2011 Thakur Ji Maharaj Murli Manohar Mandir ….Petitioner Vs. Mandir Thakur Ji Maharaj and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate and Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.4.2009 (P.5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide which their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as respondent No.2 in a reference petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “1894 Act”) has been dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that Mandir Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj (hereinafter to be referred as”Mandir”) is situated in village Chandwas and the residents of village Chandawas, Tehsil and District Rewari are having full faith in it. It is further averred that there are many properties owned by said Mandir in village Chandawas and in the surrounding area and out of that some land measuring 5 kanal 8 marlas situated in Village Aaspur was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide Notification dated 4.4.2007 issued under Section 4 followed by the C.R.No.2322 of 2009 #2# declaration dated 23.4.2007 under Section 6 of 1894 Act and thereafter an award was pronounced by learned Land Acquisition Collector on 31.8.2007 to the tune of Rs.1456290/-. It is further alleged that in order to grab the above compensation amount, a reference petition dated 5.10.2007 (P.3) under Section 30 of 1894 Act (P.3) was filed by respondent No.1-Mandir Thakur Ji Maharaj at Budhpur Pattedar against respondent No.2 in collusion of each other by forging a 99 years lease deed for the period 25.9.1978 to 24.9.2077. It is further alleged that in connivance with each other, a compromise dated 1.4.2008 (P.4) was also effected between the respondents to get the equal shares of amount of compensation referred above. In these circumstances, the petitioner being the registered society to manage the property of Mandir filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as respondent No.2 in the reference petition referred above but the same has been dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 1.4.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has committed a gross error of law, which is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that respondent Nos.1 & 2 in connivance with each other are trying to swindle the amount of compensation regarding the acquisition of land referred above. It is further submitted that it is the petitioner-Society, who is looking after the land of the Mandir and not the respondents and as such the petitioner-Society is entitled to receive the amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have C.R.No.2322 of 2009 #3# strongly defended the order passed by learned Additional District Judge and submitted that the order is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of impugned order dated 1.4.2009 reveals that aim and object of the petitioner-Society is to look after about 23 acres of land of Mandir Murli Manohar Maharaj Ji situated in village Chandwas but in the present case, the agricultural land, which was acquired is situated in village Aaspur and the petitioner has not produced any document to show its right, title or interest in the suit property. There is no dispute that the land measuring 5 kanal 8 marlas situated at Village Aaspur, Tehsil & District Rewari belonging to Mandir was acquired under the provisions of 1894 Act. The contention of the petitioner that as per Registration Certificate (P.1) Clause 2-A, the area of operation is described as Rewari and around Rewari and thus the petitioner-Society has every right, title and interest to be impleaded as a party in the present reference as the property in dispute is situated in village Aaspur, which is around Rewari is not acceptable in view of Clause 3 of the Registration Certificate (P.1) itself and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: “3. Aims and Objects: To manage the income of approximate 23 acres of agriculture land situated in village Chandawas which was donated by villagers of Chandawas to Thakur Murli Manohar Mandi (Rewari). A perusal of Clause 3 of the Registration Certificate of the petitioner-Society clearly reveals that the petitioner-Society was to manage C.R.No.2322 of 2009 #4# the income of approximate 23 acres of agriculture land situated in village Chandwas donated by the villagers of village Chandwas to the Mandir and there is no mention of agriculture land situated in village Aaspur. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the land under reference pertains to village Aaspur and not to Chandwas, the petitioner-society is neither necessary nor a proper party to be impleaded as party respondent for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. The reasoning of learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner-Society is to look after about 23 acres of land of Mandir Murli Manohar Maharaj Ji situated in village Chandwas and the present case pertains to the acquisition of agriculture land situated in village Aaspur and thus the petitioner-Society has not produced any document to show its right, title or interest in the suit property pertaining to village Aaspur is perfectly legal and justified. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner-Society filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the impugned does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, which may warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. March 23, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE