BHAGAT RAM DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following question of Law:

(2.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur passed in Civil Appeal No.4 of 1994 decided on 30.8.2001 whereby he has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.219/1 of 1992/90 dated 21.10.1993. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the Trial Court claiming that he is the worshipper/Mahant of temple/Deity Ram Chander Ji at Swarghat and the order dated 8.3.1990 passed by the District Collector, Bilaspur is without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the plaintiff and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -State of H.P from interfering in the worship, management and control of the plaintiff was sought. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the public of the area in question filed some complaint to the District Collector, Bilaspur in respect of a Sarai at Swarghat. On the basis of this complaint, the Collector initiated proceedings under the H.P Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 against the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff is in illegal possession of the Sarai which in the revenue papers is recorded as Sarai Aam and Rafai Aam. It was alleged that the plaintiff had rented out some rooms of the Sarai to a number of persons and was charging rent from them. In response to the notice issued under the H.P Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, the plaintiff stated that there is a temple of Shree Ram Chandarji at Swarghat and the Sarai belongs to the temple. According to him, the Sarai was never constructed by the State Government but was constructed by the Rulers of the erstwhile State of Bilaspur. It was further alleged that the grandmother of the erstwhile Ruler of Bilaspur State Raja Anand Chand had constructed the Sarai. According to the plaintiff, Mahant Ram Saran Dass was appointed Manager Incharge of the temple and the Sarai. He was succeeded by the plaintiff Bhagat Ram Dass who was the Manager of the properties. The plea of the plaintiff before the Collector was that he is not in possession of the Sarai or the temple but is only worshipper thereof and that the temple Ram Chanderji be declared owner with right of worship to the plaintiff. The Collector on this, passed the following order: - I agree with the version of the counsel as well as Shri Bhagat Ram Dass to change the entries in the record as part of Temple, with the following conditions:

(3.) HE can also be required to pay rent/damages for the period he is being in occupation. The Collector has no jurisdiction to pass any other order. From the record of the case, it is apparent that only a complaint from the public was received. There is no finding whether the premises are public premises or not. The directions given by the Collector were not within his jurisdiction neither under the H.P Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 or under any other provision of law. The Collector could not have ordered that the ownership of the land be recorded in favour of the temple instead of the State. He could not have directed that the Naib Tehsildar will be Incharge of the Temple or that a Committee be appointed for this purpose. This order is totally and wholly without jurisdiction. It is in fact not an order passed under any provision of the H.P Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has not been able to point out any provision of law under which such an order could be passed. In my considered opinion, the Collector totally exceeded his jurisdiction and exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law.