Punjabi HC dismissed CWP challenging eviction orders of a temple priest who was discharged from service. Court held no right to possess premises once employment terminated and dismissed petition as infructuous due to prior possession.
Writ petition dismissed; possession already taken over by respondent management.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 10857 of 2010(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10857 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 03.05.2012
Vishnu Dev Shukla, Pujari
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner has impugned orders dated 23.9.2008 and 12.10.2009. His claim was that he was working as a Pujari in 'Sri Chinmasta Durga Mandir, Gaurgarh, Phagwara'. The respondent no.4 – management filed an application under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1997 for the ejectment and recovery of rent from the petitioner. They sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as a Priest of the Temple where he was residing with minor children at the place adjoining the Mandir and subsequently he proclaimed himself to be the Mohtamim and Muntajim and consequent thereto, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with.
The petitioner also initiated proceedings in the Civil Court claiming himself to be Mohtamim of the temple and the shops adjoining thereto as also the other properties. The Civil suit was dismissed against
CWP No. 10857 of 2010(O&M) 2
which an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal preferred against the judgments aforesaid was also dismissed in the year 2005. The District Collector before whom the proceedings were initiated for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question accepted the plea of the respondent – management and ordered the eviction of the petitioner against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner who upheld the order of the Collector, Kapurthala.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition questioning the proceedings. He has primarily contended that he was not an unauthorized occupant and that the management has no authority to seek his eviction.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that once the petitioner unsuccessfully contested the proceedings before the Civil Court proclaiming himself to be Mohtamim and the respondents having taken up a categoric plea that the petitioner was merely an employee of the management and appointed for a particular purpose and they have terminated his services in the year 2004 which order went unchallenged by the petitioner, he has no locus to maintain right to possession of the property which undisputedly belongs to the Mandir and is being managed by the respondent – management. There can hardly be a fallacy in this approach as the petitioner in his capacity is an employee of the Mandir was permitted the right to reside in the premises and once the first right is extinguished, the second right to possess and retain the residential premises beyond the period of employment is un-acceptable. There is thus no infirmity in the findings recorded by the District Collector and the Commissioner in the impugned orders and the writ petition is held
CWP No. 10857 of 2010(O&M) 3
to be without any merit as hardly any legal submission has been raised to establish the right of the petitioner.
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 had made a statement that the possession of the disputed premises has already been taken and rather the same has been taken before the filing of the petition and this has rendered the instant petition as infructuous. Though the petitioner had prayed for time to verify this fact and seek instructions yet without disputing this fact an attempt has been made to say that a surviving issue still remains in view of the challenge mounted by the petitioner to the impugned orders.
The challenge having been negated by the aforesaid reasons given by this Court and noticing the fact that the possession has since been taken over by the respondent even prior to the filing of the petition, I am of the considered opinion that the petition need not be kept alive any more and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
May 3, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired temple priest has the right to claim possession of temple premises after termination of service.
Whether the eviction proceedings were initiated without proper authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishnu Dev Shukla
State of Punjab
Respondent no.4 (Temple Management)
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
