IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 C.O.C.P. No. 519 of 2000 Mahant Sant Parkash ….Petitioner Versus Sh. Jasbir Singh Bir and others. … Respondents C.O.C.P. No. 972 of 2000 Mahant Sant Parkash. …Petitioner Versus Smt. Shyama Mann and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Alok Singh, J. I have gone through the record. COCP No.519 of 2000 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner moved before the Registrar for registering the lease deed but the Sub Registrar declined to register the same because the Additional Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 21.10.1982 debarred the Registrar from registering the sale or lease of properties pertaining to religious places and Deras. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the executive directions dated 21.10.1982 and the subsequent order of the Sub Registrar before this Court by filing CWP No. 1706 of 1985. This Court was pleased to hold that the State Government had no power or authority to issue instructions or directions to the authorities functioning under the Indian Registration Act restraining or restricting them from registering documents pertaining to the transfer of rights in any immovable property belonging to religious institutions and further issued directions that the lease deed should be registered. Against the order of this Court, State Government filed LPA and a Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment of Single Bench of this Court. Petitioner further submitted that a Civil Writ Petition No. 5388 of 1991 was filed by Mahant of Dera Bir Kheri Gujjran seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice issued by the Under Secretary Revenue to Government of Punjab dated 1.4.1991 wherein it was decided to remove him from the Mahantship of the Dera. This Court vide order 2 COCP No.519 of 2000 dated 18.01.1994 held that the official respondents have no right or jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession, management and control of petitioner institution and the properties attached thereto except in due course of law. The allegation of the petitioner is that inspite of order of this Court, respondent no.1 is now interfering in the peaceful possession of the land belonging to the petitioner and after trespassing on the land belonging to the petitioner a Board has been displayed stating that the land belongs to the State Government and that the land is not for sale and thus, the respondents are willfully violating the orders of this Court. Respondent No.1 filed his reply in which he rebutted the allegations made by the petitioner in his contempt petition and submitted that this Hon’ble Court in Writ petition No. 5388 of 1991 has directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession, management and control of the petitioner but the respondents have taken the action only as per law to protect the Deras property for being sold to innocent buyers as the Mahant cannot sell the dera’s land. As the Mahant had leased out the land in the shape of plots for residential purpose and misappropriated the lease money. Therefore, a Board has been displayed on 3 COCP No.519 of 2000 the disputed land so that the petitioner may not sell the land illegally. It is further pleaded that the intention of the letter dated 17.11.1999 was only to protect the interest of the poor people from investing their earnings in buying the dera’s land as the Mahants are not the rightful owners and they were selling the lands by way of lease for 99 years in an illegal manner. Respondent further submitted that no order or direction issued by this Court has been violated by the respondents and all the actions have been done by the respondents as per the law and to protect the properties of the Deras. However, the respondent has tendered unqualified apology for the action taken by him which is accepted. Thus, no contempt is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondent stands discharged. A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of the connected matter. July 25, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4