The interest of a minor cannot be made to suffer because of the negligence or disregard of duty by those responsible for protecting it, and the Court has the power and duty to intervene to protect the interest of the minor.

ORDER:- This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Devta Chikhreshwar through Shri Daulat Ram, Karta and President of the Temple of the aforesaid deity as a next friend for setting aside the order and judgment of the learned District Judge, dated 24th November, 1967, upholding the judgment and order of the learned Compensation Officer, Mahasu.

2. The petitioner's land vested under tie provisions of S.27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the State Government on the passing of the Act. The petitioner alleges that he is a small landowner and he had applied to the Compensation Officer for giving him rehabilitation grant as he had no other land for his maintenance. But this application was opposed on the ground that the applicants viz., Daulat Ram and Mohan Lal were not competent inasmuch as they had no locus standi to file this application on behalf of the Devta. Further that the Rehabilitation Grant Rules were not applicable to the Devta. The learned Compensation Officer dismissed the application on the ground that Daulat Ram and Mohan Lal had no authority to file this application on behalf of the Devta. According to him it was the District Temple Committee which was competent to make an application. This order was made on 30th August, 1967. Against this order an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, who dismissed the same on the ground that the appeal was barred by time. The limitation of appeal was 45 days and the appeal was filed 9 days after the expiry of the limitation.

3. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution through Shri Daulat Ram Kardar as the next friend. It is stated that the petitioner deity is worshipped by a large number of people of the surrounding areas and they have got implicit faith in it. They also believe that in case the customary rituals and other rites are not performed in the temple, they may incur the wrath of the deity. After the investment of the land of the petitioner in the Government, there is no source of income left to the petitioner deity to carry on with the necessary rituals and other rites. There is no legally constituted district temple committee, but the Deputy Commissioner under some circular is termed as President of the District Temple Committee. As such a Deputy Commissioner is a Government functionary and in case he fails to discharge his duties as such, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The matter involved in this writ petition is that Shri Daulat Ram, who is filing this petition as the next friend of the petitioner deity is an old man aged about 80 years and he had been keeping bad health and remained seriously ill for the last about three years and, therefore, he could not bring this petition earlier. Hence in order to safeguard the interest of the deity who is a minor he had brought this petition for setting aside the order of the District Judge and the delay was because of his protracted illness. As the limitation for filing the appeal had expired and the matter involved is of substantial and far-reaching effect, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was necessary in the interest of justice.

4. The respondent put in his return and it was averred that the petition is not competent as the petitioner allowed the time for appeal to the District Judge and the High Court to expire. The respondent, therefore, merely contested the petition on the ground of delay and laches as also on the ground that there was an alternative remedy by way of a suit under the Abolition Act.

5. It is not disputed that it is obligatory on the State Govt, to give rehabilitation grant as envisaged under Section 27(5) of the Act to small land-owners, whose right, title and interest have been extinguished and who do not have any other means of livelihood. The petitioner is a