R.F.A. No. 596 of 1988 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 596 of 1988 Date of decision: September 09,2008 Smt. Attri and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Rajesh Bindal J. The challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned Court below under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), whereby the claim made by the appellants for apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land beneath the temple was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the land measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas, situated in Village Kherki Dausa was acquired by the State of Haryana. The appellants claiming themselves to be the heirs of one Sumran Dass son of Kanshi Ram laid their claim for compensation stating that their ancestors had been given the land by the biswedars of the village for service to the temple and thus they had become the owners thereof and biswedars had relinquished their right, title or interest therein. The learned Court below considering the material on record and the stand of the Gram Panchayat, whose ownership had been recorded in the revenue record, rejected the claim of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the revenue record produced by them, submitted that Mandir Barwara has been shown to be dohlidar, whereas the names of the ancestors of the appellants have been shown as Pujaris. In fact, it was the ancestors and thereafter the R.F.A. No. 596 of 1988 [ 2] appellants who were performing the duties of Pujari in that temple and on that basis, they should be held to be the owners of the land and the compensation on account of acquisition thereof, if not to the extent of 100%, certain percentage thereof is payable to the appellants, as their status cannot be held to be inferior than that of a tenant on the land. Reliance has been placed on Punjab Wakf Board v. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 481. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one has appeared for contesting respondent No.2- Gram Panchayat. A Division Bench judgment of Lahore High Court in Sewa Ram v. Udegir, AIR 1922 Lahore 126 considered the term `dohli' and opined as under: “ The dohli tenure is a peculiar kind of tenure to be found in the south-eastern districts of Punjab. It is a rent-free grant of a small plot of land by the village community for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine, or to a person for a religious purpose. In the revenue records the proprietary body are recorded as the owners of the property and the grantee is recorded as a tenant in the column of cultivation. So long as the purpose, for which the grant is made, is carried out, it cannot be resumed, but should the holder fail to carry out the duties of his office,the proprietors can eject him and put in some one else under a like tenure. It is beyond dispute that tenure of this kind cannot be alienated by sale or mortgage, and there can be little doubt that any alienation of that character, if made by the dohlidar would be absolutely void. This being the case, we are not prepared to accept the contention that the present dohlidar who is the son of the alienor, is precluded by any rule of law from impeaching the alienation made by his father. As the transaction was altogether void, we consider that even the alienor could have successfully pleaded in answer to the plaintiff's suit that the later could not enforce it in a Court of law. There is, therefore, no reason why the defendant should not be able to impeach the alienation more especially when we remember that the office of a dohlidar is similar to that of a trustee, and that it is open to R.F.A. No. 596 of 1988 [ 3] one trustee, to impeach the validity of an alienation made by his predecessor.” The dispute regarding the status and the rights of a dohlidar came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in R.S.A. No. 904 of 1983-- Dharam Vir v. Bahadur Singh and another, decided on 25.8.2006, where the question referred for consideration to the Division Bench was as under: “What are the restrictions on alienability of `dohli' tenure?” This Court, after considering various judgments on the subject, answered the question in the following terms: “(i) The `dohli' tenure may be a rent free grant for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or to a person for a religious purpose and the grant continues till the holder carries out the duties of his office and can be terminated on failure to carry out the said duties as held in Sewa Ram's case (supra). (ii) `Dohlidar' may be a land owner qua his tenant in the situation mentioned in Baba Badri Dass v. Dharma and others, 1982(1) ILR 491. (iii) `Dohlidar' may be an owner if `dohli' is in the nature of gift and at the time of creating `dohli', no condition for use of the dohli land for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or other religious purpose is imposed, as noticed in judgments of this Court in Baba Badri Dass's case (supra) and Dhani Ram and another v. Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat of Village Jatmalpur and others, 1984 PLJ 234. (iv) If a `dohli' is held to be a grant for a religious purpose, its management, alienability and succession will not be governed by law of management, alienability or succession of an individual's property but by succession, mangement or alienation of a religious property.” As is evident from the revenue record, dohlidar in the present case is recorded as Mandir Barwara and the ancestors of the appellants are merely recorded as Punjaris of the temple, meaning thereby that the appellants or their ancestors were not dohlidars as such. In terms of the judgment in Sewa Ram's case (supra), dohlidar could be given for the R.F.A. No. 596 of 1988 [ 4] benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or to a person for religious purpose, meaning thereby that even a temple could also be given certain property as a dohli. Once the appellants or their ancestors are not held to be dohlidar, as is established from the revenue record, they have no right, title or interest in the property as such because they were only working as Pujaris in the temple at the most. Mere their working as Pujaris will not entitle them to share the compensation on account of acquisition of land beneath the temple. Even otherwise, the amount of compensation in the present case received on account of acquisition of land beneath the temple is merely Rs. 8984.50. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants does not deal with the issue regarding right to share compensation on account of acquisition of land by a dohlidar as dohli is given for the purpose of performing certain duties and once there is no duty to be performed, dohli itself will revert to the owner. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 09,2008 mk