IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3128 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 Krishna Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders Annexure P-6 and P-7, dated 27.3.2008 and 4.11.2010 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively. 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 CWP No.3128 of 2011 [2] 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 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. 5. No interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 22, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?