THAKURJI MAHARAJ SHIV MANDIR THAKURDWARA Vs. ATMA BAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Thakurji Maharaj Shiv Mandir Thakurdwara through Shri Ram Charan Dass, secretary, Shiv Mandir Committee, Una, has preferred a revision petition against the order, dated 27 -4 -1981 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division By virtue of the impugned order, he dismissed the appeal preferred to him and up -held the order, dated 29 -9 -1976 of the Collector, Una District.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Thakurji Maharaj Shiv Mandir Thakurdwara through its President filed an application for resumption of land under Rule 12 of H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 to the Land Reforms Officer in respect of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1113, 1114, 1117, H19, 1120 and 1122, measuring 22 Kanals situated in village Jankaur. The application was considered and the land in question, was divided into two shares, and while proprietary rights in respect of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1120/1, 1113 and 1116 measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas were conferred on Atma Ram, the respondent, the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1117, 1119, 1122 and 1120/2, measuring 11 kanals 1 marla remained in the ownership of Thakur Ji Maharaj Shiv Mandir Thakurdwara by virtue of the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer under section 104 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Later on, the Land Reforms Officer sought Collectors permission to review his order. Necessary per -missing was given by the Collector vide his order, dated 6 -2 -1976. On review, the Land Reforms Officer treated the temple deity as a minor and allowed the entire land to be retained in the ownership of the land owner i. e. Thakur Ji Maharaj Shiv Mandir Thakurdwara. The Land Reforms Officer again made a reference that since there was no provision for a review under the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the order could not have been reviewed by him. In view of this reference, the Collector, allowed the parties to file an appeal against the order, dated 6 -2 -1976 of the Land Reforms Officer. The Collector, Una District heard the appellant but he rejected the appeal vide his order, dated 22 -9 -1976. This order was challenged in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, was as stated above, dismissed the same.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the court record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to an order of this court passed on S9 -1984 in Naresh Kumar, Manager Dharamsala Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji v. Kartar Singh wherein it was held that the deity as well as the Guru Granth Sahib should be treated as a minor and should be given the benefit of exemption under section 104 (8) (a) of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. This order was based on the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh contained in SLJ 1971 Volume J, page 21, wherein it was held by this Lordship Mr. Justice D. B. Lai that the position of an idol is that of a minor and therefore, obviously the benefit which can be deduced in favour of the minor under sub -section (2) of section 11 (of H. P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953) can very well be deduced in favour of the idol which is in the position of a minor, 1 he learned Counsel for the respondent cited the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case Nagi Ram v. Mandir Shivji Maharaja\ reported in ILR 1972 p. 142, wherein it has been held that the expression minor, in section 11 (2) of the Act refers to a natural person and contem plates a person whose minority will come to an end. A Hindu idol is not a minor and is not covered by section 11 (2) of the Act. In other words, the judgment of the single Judge Mr Justice D. B, Lai was struck down by the Division Bench. The protection claimed by the petitioner under section 104 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act on the ground that the Hindu idol is a minor is not admissible in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal pradesh referred to above. According to this judgment Hindu idol is not a minor and, therefore, is not entitled to the exemption under section 104 (8) (a) of the Act. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. Announced. Order accordingly.