IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.990 of 2009 Date of decision: 19th November, 2009 Mahant Ram Dass Chella Rameshwar Dass … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of mandamus that the respondents should not demolish Hanuman Mandir, which existed in Rect. No. 69, Killa No.5/2 situated in village Ramthali, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. It is averred in the writ petition that about 1200 acres of land in village Ramthali was in the name of Samadh Baba Darbarpuri and it was managed and controlled by Mahant Hira Nand Puri Chela Surjan Puri Chela Santokh Puri. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that according to the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri, this land is in possession of Samadh Baba Darbarpuri. It is further submitted that out of this land, in 1 kanal 16 marla, a Hanuman Mandir has been constructed and residents of the area use to worship the idol of Hanuman established in the Mandir. Therefore, respondents be restrained from demolishing the Hanuman Mandir, as it exist in Rect. No. 69, Killa No.5/2 of village Ramthali. Civil Writ Petition No. 990 of 2009 Mr. Sunil Nehra, appearing for the State, has submitted that on 9th April, 2004, a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter, another Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the land was acquired and award has also been given by the Collector, Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the State has further clarified that in the said Hanuman Mandir, construction exist only in 16 marla of land and same was not acquired, as it was not part of the Notification. Ms. Balwinder Kaur, appearing for the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Cheeka, has stated that the petitioner is in an unauthorized possession of the land measuring 1 kanal, which has been acquired and award has been pronounced under the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel also reiterated that 16 marlas of land, upon which the said Mandir is constructed, is not part of the acquisition proceedings and nobody is going to demolish the temple on 16 marla of land. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already filed an appeal under the Public Premises Act. Petitioner, if so advised, may pray for any interim relief in the appeal. Since the property has been acquired and award has been pronounced, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, while exercising writ jurisdiction. Hence, no merit. Dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 19, 2009 rps 2