Mutation No. 915 attested on 27th of August 1991, pursuant to the order of Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, appointing Bawa Seva Nanad Giri as Mohatamim Mandir Mahavirji Maharaj situated at Thandhar Tehsil Chenani constructed over land comprised in Survey No. 881, has generated a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents who are residents of village Thandhar Tehsil Chenani.

2. There is no dispute between the parties that the Temple was constructed in late sixties. They, however, dispute as to who had constructed it. The petitioner, Sadhu, claims it to have been constructed by him with the financial assistance provided to him by Chenani Hydel Power Project. The respondents, however, say that the Temple had been constructed by the villagers.

3. The records on the file, however, demonstrate that the land on which the Temple had been constructed and the other land appertenant thereto and in possession of the Temple, is owned neither by the petitioner nor by the villagers. It, on the other hand, vests in the State and is recorded as State-land.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, on the request of Bawa Seva Nand Giri, the writ petitioner, and on the recommendation of Tehsildar Chenani had appointed Bawa Sewa Nand Giri as Mohatamim (Manager) of the Temple and land in its possession. Gouri Dutt and other respondents, questioned this order of learned Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur dated 4.7.1991, which had resulted in attestation of mutation No. 915, before Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu and Kashmir, who vide his order dated 28th of May 2002, set aside the mutation, holding that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to appoint Mohatamim of Temple, Mosque and such like Institutions.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner, Bawa Seva Nand Giri has approached this Court to seek a writ of certiorari to quash Financial Commissioners order dated 28th of May 2002 and to restore Deputy Commissioner, Udhampurs order dated 4.7.1991 and mutation No. 915 attested on 27th of August 1991.

6. Shri Swami Raj Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that reliance of Learned Financial Commissioner on Allan No. 13 was mis-placed as it had no application to the facts of the case and had application only to those lands, land revenue whereof stood exempted. He submitted that the petitioner was a Mendicant of stature who was respected in the village by one and all and that his continuance as Mohatamim of the Temple would be for the betterment of the Temple and the villagers. He justified the order of Learned Deputy Commissioner by saying that the order of Deputy Commissioner was covered by Standing Order 23-A, governing Mutations.

7. Shri K. N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Standing Order 23-A was not applicable to fresh appointments of Mohatamim. According to the learned counsel, Standing Order 23-A would be applicable only where mutation had to be attested in respect of a person who was either an assignee of an already appointed Mohatamim or a Mohatamim already appointed as such. He further submitted that no mutation in favour of the petitioner was permissible because the land in question, over which the Temple had been constructed, was a State-land and the petitioner was not a permanent resident of the State.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records on the file.

9. The documents on the records and the version of the Revenue Officials indicate that the Temple had been constructed in the year 1968, though on the State-land and the petitioner was performing pooja etc. and managing the affairs of the Temple. Number of residents of the locality, which included some of the private respondents too, had supported the case set up by the petitioner that he had been performing Pooja and managing the affairs of the Temple. Communication No. CMD-Complaint/Establishment-2475 dated 29th of July 1976 from Executi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document