MAHANT LACHHMAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The - petitioner, who claims to be the Manager of Dharamshala Udasian Bansanwala Bazar, Phagwara, district Kapurthala, has challenged the orders Annexures P-1 to P-3 as without jurisdiction and on the findings of fact recorded, palpably wrong. It has been averred that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were granted 27 kanals 5 marlas of land for upkeep of the Dharamshala and the requirement of Muafi was as under :

(2.) The findings of the courts of fact right from the Collector to the Financial Commissioner are uniformly against the petitioner and it has been held that the Dharamshala was not being properly maintained by the petitioner; that the income derived from the Muafi land was misappropriated by him for his personal gain so much so the land has been leased out by him to others for commercial purposes. It was also found as a matter of fact that there were complaints against the petitioner with regard to the consumption of liquor and smoking of cigarettes. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has produced before me in court a judgment dated 25th January, 1986 (Mahant Gurcharan Dass v. Mahant Lachhman Dass) rendered by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, in which similar allegations against the petitioner were made and identical relief sought qua the property which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. It was conclusively held that the petitioner had not misused the Muafi land in any way and that he had in fact been carrying out his activity as a prudent manager. These facts were brought to the notice of the Collector and the Commissioner but were brushed aside by the former by saying :-

(3.) It is also significant that against the order of the civil court, referred to above, the matter was brought to the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. These allegations are borne out from the averments made in para 9 of the petition and the reply filed thereto. Even in para 10 of the Writ Petition, it was stated as under :