Civil Writ Petition No.278 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.278 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 09, 2009 Suresh Puri and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioners. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This petition seeks quashing of proceedings dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure P1), whereby respondent No.5 has been purportedly appointed as Mahant of the Dera without determining usage or custom of “Dera Smadh Kaushal Puri” as required in terms of Civil Court judgment dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure P13) passed by Additional District, Jind. Further directions have been sought that respondent No.4 should not hand over possession of the land and the lease money of about Rs.19.50 lacs lying in the bank in the name of said Dera to respondent No.5. Case set out in the petition is that Dera was set up in about 80 acres of land which was managed by Mahant Baldev Puri who died on Civil Writ Petition No.278 of 2009 -2- 23.4.1992. Thereafter, Awadh Puri – respondent No.6, illegally occupied the Dera. In an appeal arising out of a suit, the Additional District Judge vide order dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure P13) declared that Mahant was required to be appointed as per custom and usage and the appointment was to be made by the State Administration. The State Administration made an appointment which was challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4001 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P6) set aside the appointment and directed that the appointment should be made by gathering of the devotees as per custom and usage and till then the possession will continue with the Tehsildar/Receiver. Thereafter, another appointment was made on 16.7.2007 which was challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13840 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to hand over the keys to the Registrar (General) of this Court. Thereafter, the Administration appointed respondent No.5 which has been affirmed by the gathering of the devotees on 6.2.2008. Contention raised is that the appointment has again been made of Machhandar Puri – respondent No.5, who is a man of Awadh Puri who was earlier removed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. No doubt, on earlier occasions, this Court set aside the orders of the Administration directing that appointment should be made as per custom and usage in execution of order of the Civil Court dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure P13). However, whether the appointment now made is as per custom and usage and whether respondent No.6 – Machhandar Puri is in fact nominee of Awadh Puri who has earlier been removed is not a Civil Writ Petition No.278 of 2009 -3- question which may be gone into by this Court. The petitioners have the remedy of approaching the State Administration or the Civil Court in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) January 09, 2009 JUDGE SRM