DERA KALI KAMBLIWALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Dera Kali Kambliwala, petitioner No. 1 and Mahatma Amar Darshan Anand, petitioner for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, respondent No. 2 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the Dera and land, in dispute, to the petitioners.

(2.) In brief the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a cheritable trust functioning at Patiala for the last more than 20 years. The petitioner is a citizen of India and Mohtmim of the Dera Kali Kambliwala, petitioner No. 1. The Trust Committee vide its resolution dated May 11, 1970. entrusted the land comprised in Khasra No. 555- Min(8.2) and No. 555-Min(0-14) along with Dera to petitioner No. 2, who was in actual physical possession of the property as its Mohtmim since then. The revenue record shows that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land, in dispute. There was previous litigation between the petitioners and some other persons and the Civil Court had granted injunction to the petitioners.

(3.) In the written statement filed by Shri S. P. Singal, Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, on his own behalf and on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3, the main contentions raised in the writ petition have been emphatically denied. It is denied that the petitioners are owners of the property, in dispute, or any trust has been created to manage this property or the same has been entrusted by any trust to petitioner No. 2. It is averred that the property, in dispute belonging to the Erstwhile State of Patiala. Vide orders dated May 17, 1938, the management of the land, in dispute, had been given to Dera Kali Kambliwala, under the control of the Revenue Authorities. A copy of the order has been attached as Annexure R-2 to the writ petition. It has been clearly averred by Respondent No. 2 that in fact the State was the owner, in possession, of the land, and was in fact in possession of the same. The petitioner was not in possession, so the question of his dispossession from the land, in dispute, does not arise.