ROMESH CHANDER Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, J. N. Bhat J. dated Jan: 19 1972, who vide his aforesaid judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the Financial Commissioner. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly put as below:

(2.) LAND measuring 53 kanals 4 marlas situate in village Purana Dror Tehsil Reasi was alleged to be in possession of one Gopal Chand as an occupancy tenant thereof, by the petitioner in his writ petition. According to the petitioner Gokal Chand had constructed a Gupha (Mandhir) in 10 marlas out of the aforesaid land and the remaining land was attached to this Gupha as garden, and agricultural land, which was also stated to be in possession of the said Gokal Chand. It further alleged that this Asthan Gupha was being managed by one Sardula Nand Chela Achda Nand Sad, Sanyasi with the consent of the said Gokal Chand. The petitioner than went on to say that on the death of Gokal Chand, the possession of this entire land including Gupha was taken over by the petitioner in his capacity as Chela of Sardula Nand. According to the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, on being moved in that behalf by the Dharmarth Trust which is respondent No: 3 herein ordered dispossession of the petitioner from the aforesaid land including Gupha vide his order dated March 9, 1965 in purported exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him u/s 133 of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) with a further direction that the Gupha be placed under the management of the Dharmarth Trust. The petitioner then alleged that he went in appeal against the aforesaid order to the Divisional Commissioner and the later being of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the said order referred the case to the Financial Commissioner, who is respondent No. 1 herein, with a recommendation that the order of the Deputy Commissioner be set aside. The Financial Commissioner, according to the petitioner, partially upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide his judgment dated May 29, 70 and ordered only the ejectment of the petitioner from the aforesaid 53 kanals 4 marlas of land including the Gupha constructed thereupon. A review petition against the aforesaid order of the Financial Commissioner field by the petitioner also resulted in its dismissal. The petitioner challenged the order in writ jurisdiction in this court, mainly, on the grounds that the order of the Dy. Commissioner was without any jurisdiction in the absence of any finding that the land was reserved for any public purpose, that the Dharmarth Trust had no right to interfere with the management of the Gupha, that the petitioner was condemned unheard by the Deputy Commissioner and that the peaceful physical possession of the petitioner could not have been disturbed.

(3.) THE respondent resisted the writ petition on the grounds that the petition involved determination of question of fact and was not maintainable; that the finding of fact given by the Financial Commissioner could not be disturbed, that the provision of Sec: 133 of the Act were squarely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the land had been reserved for religious purposes which was a public purpose; that the petitioner was not the Chela of Sardula Nand, that the temple was an old one and had not been constructed by Gokal Chand, that Dharmarth Trust was fully authorised to take into its management the temple in dispute under Aiena Dharmarth; that the petitioner was neither in physical actual possession nor the temple was meant for actual physical possession; and that the petitioner had not been prejudiced in any manner by the aforesaid orders.