IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3956 of 2015. Reserved on: 23.6.2023 Date of decision: 6.7.2H023.

Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu ...Petitioner.

Versus f State of H.P. & others o ...Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.

For the rCespondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4-State.

g Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 19, 25, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48, 56 to 61, 63 to 65, 67, 71 to 76, 79 to 81, 83 to 86, 91, 95, 98, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 111 to 116, 120, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 160, 162, 170 to 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 202, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228 to 232, 234, 273, 275, 276, 277, 280, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 and

292.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

Mr. Rajiv Rai, for respondent Nos. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 251, 253, 254, 255, 266, 267, 270 and 272. Mr. Balwant Thakur, .Advocate, for respondent No.89. H Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 215 .

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

Petitioner is a tregistered trust. It claims to have been formed for various objectives including the one to protect the “Dev Sanskriti”. As per petitioner, the ‘Dev Sanskriti’ is an integral part of ethos of District Kullu. The value system intrinsically inculcates the devotion towards “Devtas” and “hDevis” (local deities) in the local population of the district. A large number of local deities have their existence throughout the district having their respective area of prevalence.

2. Petitioner has specifically alleged that the local deities owned large tracts of land in their individual names. In view of personal inability of deities to cultivate their lands, the cultivation was being done through the tenants, who in almost all the cases were none else than the persons overlooking the management of the affairs of local deities. With the passage of time, various legislations have seen the light of the day for enforcing agrarian reforms. H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 being the important amongst them. Under the garb of these legislations, the agricultural holdings held in the names of local deities came to be transferred in favour of the tenants or tillers in possession. The tenants or the third parties, as the case may be, which came to be vested with the ownership of lands earlier owned by local deities, further transferred such lands to third parties and in most of the cases for tangible consideration.

3. Expressing its grievance against the transfer of the lands owned by local deities in favour of third parties, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition for the following substantive reliefs: -

“i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the i respondents to quash and set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities whereby permitting the Mujarian, Pujaries, Mohtmims and Kardars from time to time under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Abolition of Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 to transfer the land of the Devi Devtas without jurisdiction, being void, illegal and arbitrary, pertaining to the land belongs to Devi Devtas i.e. 90744 bighas out of which about 84000 bighas of land of Devi Devtas, who are minors as per settled law of land, has been transferred by Kardars, to third party without any right, title, interest over the property, which certainly