MAHANT RAJINDER GIR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal against the judgement of the first appellate court, whereby affirming the decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed by the trial court, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be noticed first. Plaintiff- appellant, who is Mahant of Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deot Sidh,Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of the properties, comprised in khewat No. 383, khatoni No. 474, Khasra Nos. 2302/904, 2303/904, 915, measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marlas, situated in Tikka Chakmoh, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, hereinafter called suit property and that the order dated 6.12.1998, passed by the Financial Commissioner, ordering the incorporation of the aforesaid property in the register of temple property, under Section 6 of the H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was illegal, void and hence not binding upon him. It was alleged that the plaintiff is Mahant of the shrine of Baba Balak Nath, Deot Sidh. As a Mahant, as per wazib-ul-arz, he was entitled to 6 and 1/2 annas share per rupee out of the offerings made at the aforesaid shrine. The property of the shrine was comprised in Khewat No. 383 min, Khatauni No. 476, khasra No. 918, measuring 3 Kanals 6 Marlas. This property is entered in the ownership and possession of the shrine. The suit property is different from the shrine property and it is entered in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The State of Himachal Pradesh enacted a law, known as H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. This Act came into force on 26th November, 1984. Section 6 of the Act, provides for preparation and maintenance of a register of every Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment, to which the Act applies. The plaintiff in accordance with the provision of Section 6 of the said Act, prepared a register and submitted it to the Commissioner, appointed for the purpose of the Act, as per requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 6, aforesaid. The Commissioner without making any enquiry, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 6, of the Act, included the suit property, which is different from the property of the shrine and is in fact the personal property of the plaintiff in the aforesaid register. The plaintiff filed a Civil Writ Petition, being CWP No. 338 of 1987, titled Mahant Shiv Gir vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in this court, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.4.1988. The order reads as follows:-

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises challenging this order dated 6.12.1988 of the Financial Commissioner. He alleged that the order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the suit property is not the property of the shrine, but the personal property of the plaintiff and hence it could not have been ordered to be included in Form-A register required to be prepared and maintained, under Section 6 of the Act.