Baba Shanti Dass Baba Shanti Dass v. District Collector
Case Details
CR-5784-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-5784-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 15.09.2025 Decided on : Baba Shanti Dass Baba Shanti Dass ....Petitioner VERSUS District Collector/District Magistrate, District Collector/District Magistrate, Ambala and Others Ambala and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
Facts
India has been filed by the petitioner–plaintiff, challenging the c India has been filed by the petitioner oncurrent orders plaintiff, challenging the concurrent orders Civil ourts below: the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Civil ourts below: the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned passed by the Courts below: the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned , dismissing the petitioner’s application under Judge (Junior Division), Naraingarh, dismissing the petitioner’s application under , dismissing the petitioner’s application under Judge (Junior Division), Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, and the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, and the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, and the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, and the ellate Court affirming the judgment dated 31.07.2025 of the learned lower Appellate Court affirming the judgment dated 31.07.2025 of the learned lower App judgment dated 31.07.2025 of the learned lower App iscellaneous appeal same in civil miscellaneous appeal Brief Facts 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the Markandeshwar averments that he has been performing the duties of Mahant at Markandeshwar averments that he has been performing the duties of Mahant at averments that he has been performing the duties of Mahant at
Legal Reasoning
District Magistrate and in compliance of the order passed by this Court in CRWP District Magistrate and in compliance of the order passed by this Court in CRWP District Magistrate and in compliance of the order passed by this Court in CRWP District Magistrate and in compliance of the order passed by this Court in CRWP angarh, and thereafter defendant no. 2, were No. 3492 of 2023, the SDM, Naraiangarh, and thereafter defendant no. 2, were angarh, and thereafter defendant no. 2, were No. 3492 of 2023, the SDM, Nara a Amb. By appointed to maintain law and order at Markandeshwar Mandir, Kala Amb. By appointed to maintain law and order at Markandeshwar Mandir, Kal appointed to maintain law and order at Markandeshwar Mandir, Kal letter dated 26.03.2024, defendant no. 2 was appointed as D letter dated 26.03.2024, de agistrate for fendant no. 2 was appointed as Duty Magistrate for 10.04.2024 for removal of the plaintiff’s possession from the temple land. It was 10.04.2024 for removal of the plaintiff’s possession from the temple land. It was 10.04.2024 for removal of the plaintiff’s possession from the temple land. It was 10.04.2024 for removal of the plaintiff’s possession from the temple land. It was submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land, and is submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land, and is submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land, and is submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land, and is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5784-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - misusing the garb of being Mahant to claim ownership. Defendant no. 3 did not misusing the garb of being Mahant to claim ownership. Defendant no. 3 did not misusing the garb of being Mahant to claim ownership. Defendant no. 3 did not misusing the garb of being Mahant to claim ownership. Defendant no. 3 did not file any written statement. file any written statement. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the plaintiff’s application for injunction vide order dated 12.04.2024. dismissed the plaintiff’s application for injunction dismissed the plaintiff’s application for injunction order dated 12.04.2024. It was observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, as was observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, as was observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, as was observed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, as he had earlier filed petitions before this Court which were withdrawn without he had earlier filed petitions before this Court which were withdrawn without he had earlier filed petitions before this Court which were withdrawn without he had earlier filed petitions before this Court which were withdrawn without producing documents in support of his claim. There was concealment of earlier producing documents in support of his claim. There was concealment of earlier producing documents in support of his claim. There was concealment of earlier producing documents in support of his claim. There was concealment of earlier e trial Court further found that no revenue record or document had proceedings. The trial Court further found that no revenue record or document had e trial Court further found that no revenue record or document had proceedings. Th been produced to prove the plaintiff’s ownership or possession, and that being a been produced to prove the plaintiff’s ownership or possession, and that being a been produced to prove the plaintiff’s ownership or possession, and that being a been produced to prove the plaintiff’s ownership or possession, and that being a Mahant did not confer ownership rights. The Court concluded that no prima facie Mahant did not confer ownership rights. The Court concluded that no prima facie Mahant did not confer ownership rights. The Court concluded that no prima facie Mahant did not confer ownership rights. The Court concluded that no prima facie our, that the balance of convenience lay against him, case was made out in his favour, that the balance of convenience lay against him, our, that the balance of convenience lay against him, case was made out in his fav and that no irreparable loss was established. and that no irreparable loss was established. 6. The lower Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.07.2025 The lower Appellate Court, passed in judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed in civil miscellaneous appeal, upheld the order of the civil miscellaneous appeal trial Court. It recorded , upheld the order of the learned trial Court. It recorded that although the plaintiff may have been appointed as Mahant earlier, that by itself that although the plaintiff may have been appointed as Mahant earlier, that by itself that although the plaintiff may have been appointed as Mahant earlier, that by itself that although the plaintiff may have been appointed as Mahant earlier, that by itself conferred no personal right in the property. The A conferred no perso ppellate Court referred to the nal right in the property. The Appellate Court referred to the resolution dated 17.07.2021 produced by defendant no. 3, showing that charge of resolution dated 17.07.2021 produced by defendant no. 3, showing that charge of resolution dated 17.07.2021 produced by defendant no. 3, showing that charge of resolution dated 17.07.2021 produced by defendant no. 3, showing that charge of Gera, and treasurer, le had been handed over to the secretary, Bhim Sain Gera, and treasurer, le had been handed over to the secretary, Bhim the temple had been handed over to the secretary, Bhim Barkha Ram. It held that the plaintiff had ceased to be Mahant of the temple and Barkha Ram. It held that the plaintiff had ceased to be Mahant of the temple and Barkha Ram. It held that the plaintiff had ceased to be Mahant of the temple and Barkha Ram. It held that the plaintiff had ceased to be Mahant of the temple and s. In these circumstances, the that possession had been taken over by other persons. In these circumstances, the that possession had been taken over by other person that possession had been taken over by other person learned Appellate Co urt held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any prima ppellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any prima urt held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any prima facie right or possession over the suit property, and that he was not entitled to facie right or possession over the suit property, and that he was not entitled to facie right or possession over the suit property, and that he was not entitled to facie right or possession over the suit property, and that he was not entitled to interim injunction. interim injunction. 7. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner/plaintiff. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5784-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - ed counsel for the parties. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Submissions of learn 8. earned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Gram Panchayat Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Gram Panchayat earned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Gram Panchayat earned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution in his favour on 24.05.2023, that he has electricity had passed a resolution in his favour on 24.05.2023, that he has electricity had passed a resolution in his favour on 24.05.2023, that he has electricity had passed a resolution in his favour on 24.05.2023, that he has electricity connection and other identity proofs in his name, and that photographs show the connection and other identity proofs in his name, and that photographs show the connection and other identity proofs in his name, and that photographs show the connection and other identity proofs in his name, and that photographs show the temple under his supervision. It was submitted that he has been in long possession temple under his supervision. It was submitted that he has been in long possession temple under his supervision. It was submitted that he has been in long possession temple under his supervision. It was submitted that he has been in long possession and has become owner by adverse possession, and therefore deserves interim and has become owner by adverse possession, and therefore deserves interim and has become owner by adverse possession, and therefore deserves interim and has become owner by adverse possession, and therefore deserves interim protection against dispossession. protection against dispossession. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for On the ported the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned orders, contending that the petitioner has not proved possession and has impugned orders, contending that the petitioner has not proved possession and has impugned orders, contending that the petitioner has not proved possession and has impugned orders, contending that the petitioner has not proved possession and has concealed material facts, and that he cannot claim ownership merely by virtue of concealed material facts, and that he cannot claim ownership merely by virtue of concealed material facts, and that he cannot claim ownership merely by virtue of concealed material facts, and that he cannot claim ownership merely by virtue of being Mahant. Findings 10. examined the record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have heard learned counsel for the parties and The relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is The relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is The relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is The relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is discretionary in nature, to be exercised upon satisfaction of the three ingredients discretionary in nature, to be exercised upon satisf discretionary in nature, to be exercised upon satisf action of the three ingredients - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the courts prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the cou prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the cou prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the cou below, on appreciation of material before them, have concurrently held that the below, on appreciation of material before them, have concurrently held that the below, on appreciation of material before them, have concurrently held that the below, on appreciation of material before them, have concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The resolution plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The resolution plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The resolution plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The resolution relied upon by the petitioner has not been found sufficient to dislodge the relied upon by the petitioner has not been found sufficient to dislodge the relied upon by the petitioner has not been found sufficient to dislodge the relied upon by the petitioner has not been found sufficient to dislodge the roduced by the respondents showing that charge of the temple had resolution produced by the respondents showing that charge of the temple had roduced by the respondents showing that charge of the temple had roduced by the respondents showing that charge of the temple had already been handed over to other persons. The petitioner has not placed on record already been handed over to other persons. The petitioner has not placed on record already been handed over to other persons. The petitioner has not placed on record already been handed over to other persons. The petitioner has not placed on record revenue records or other cogent material to show that he is in settled possession. In revenue records or other cogent material to show that he is in settled possession. In revenue records or other cogent material to show that he is in settled possession. In revenue records or other cogent material to show that he is in settled possession. In f possession, no prima facie case exists. Once that is so, the the absence of proof of possession, no prima facie case exists. Once that is so, the f possession, no prima facie case exists. Once that is so, the the absence of proof o balance of convenience also cannot be said to lie in his favour, nor is there any balance of convenience also cannot be said to lie in his favour, nor is there any balance of convenience also cannot be said to lie in his favour, nor is there any balance of convenience also cannot be said to lie in his favour, nor is there any TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5784-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -5- - irreparable injury demonstrated, for the law is well settled that unless possession is irreparable injury demonstrated, for the law is well settled that unless possession is irreparable injury demonstrated, for the law is well settled that unless possession is irreparable injury demonstrated, for the law is well settled that unless possession is njunction can be granted to protect it. prima facie proved, no injunction can be granted to protect it. prima facie proved, no i 11. It is equally well settled that in revision under Article 227 of the It is equally well settled that in revision under Article 227 of the It is equally well settled that in revision under Article 227 of the It is equally well settled that in revision under Article 227 of the appreciate facts. The Constitution, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate facts. The Constitution, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re Constitution, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re ary orders is extremely scope of interference with interlocutory and discretionary orders is extremely scope of interference with interlocutory and discretion scope of interference with interlocutory and discretion limited. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or limited. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or limited. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or limited. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse or suffering from gross illegality, revisional interference is not warranted. In the suffering from gross illegality, revisional interference is not warranted. In the suffering from gross illegality, revisional interference is not warranted. In the suffering from gross illegality, revisional interference is not warranted. In the their present case, the trial Court and the appellate Court have both exercised their present case, the trial Court and the appellate Court have both exercised present case, the trial Court and the appellate Court have both exercised discretion upon consideration of the pleadings and material before them, and there discretion upon consideration of the pleadings and material before them, and there discretion upon consideration of the pleadings and material before them, and there discretion upon consideration of the pleadings and material before them, and there is no perversity or jurisdictional error apparent. is no perversity or jurisdictional error apparent. Conclusion 12.
Arguments
near Markanda Bridge, , Prachin Shri Maharishi Markandeshwar Temple near Markanda Bridge, , Prachin Shri Maharishi Markandeshwar Temple Dham, Prachin Shri Maharishi Markandeshwar Temple angarh, District Ambala, for the last 28 to 29 years, Kala Amb, Hamidpur, Naraiangarh, District Ambala, for the last 28 to 29 years, angarh, District Ambala, for the last 28 to 29 years, Kala Amb, Hamidpur, Narai hi Das, and before him Shri Purshotam Giri and Shri succeeding his Guru Shri Sukhi Das, and before him Shri Purshotam Giri and Shri hi Das, and before him Shri Purshotam Giri and Shri succeeding his Guru Shri Suk TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5784-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - Haridas Tyagi. It is alleged that religious activities are performed at the temple, gi. It is alleged that religious activities are performed at the temple, gi. It is alleged that religious activities are performed at the temple, gi. It is alleged that religious activities are performed at the temple, remained in possession of the and that the land measuring about 16 kanals has remained in possession of the and that the land measuring about 16 kanals has and that the land measuring about 16 kanals has era for more than 70 years. The plaintiff further claimed that the Gram Panchayat Dera for more than 70 years. The plaintiff further claimed that the Gram Panchayat era for more than 70 years. The plaintiff further claimed that the Gram Panchayat era for more than 70 years. The plaintiff further claimed that the Gram Panchayat d passed a resolution in his favour, and that by virtue of of village Kala Amb had passed a resolution in his favour, and that by virtue of d passed a resolution in his favour, and that by virtue of of village Kala Amb ha long possession he has become owner of the property by way of adverse long possession he has become owner of the property by way of adverse long possession he has become owner of the property by way of adverse long possession he has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. 3. ociates have It was further pleaded that defendant no. 3 and his associates have It was further pleaded that defendant no. 3 and his ass It was further pleaded that defendant no. 3 and his ass indulged in illegal activities, and have intruded upon the Dera, pitched a tent and indulged in illegal activities, and have indulged in illegal activities, and have intruded upon the D threatened to dispossess the plaintiff by force or by implicating him in false cases. threatened to dispossess the plaintiff by force or by implicating him in false cases. threatened to dispossess the plaintiff by force or by implicating him in false cases. threatened to dispossess the plaintiff by force or by implicating him in false cases. The plaintiff stated that SDM Narai angarh had conducted an enquiry and plaintiff stated that SDM Naraiangarh had conducted an enquiry and angarh had conducted an enquiry and defendant no. 2, along with appointed officials to inspect the spot, but despite that, defendant no. 2, along with appointed officials to inspect the spot, but despite that, appointed officials to inspect the spot, but despite that, police officials, attempted to dispossess him. Notices were issued by defendant no. police officials, attempted to dispossess him. Notices were issued by defendant no. police officials, attempted to dispossess him. Notices were issued by defendant no. police officials, attempted to dispossess him. Notices were issued by defendant no. 2 requiring him to vacate, and reliance was placed upon certain administrative 2 requiring him to vacate, and reliance was placed upon certain administrative 2 requiring him to vacate, and reliance was placed upon certain administrative 2 requiring him to vacate, and reliance was placed upon certain administrative ntiff sought a decree orders issued by defendant no. 1. On these allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree orders issued by defendant no. 1. On these allegations, the plai orders issued by defendant no. 1. On these allegations, the plai of permanent injunction and also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules of permanent injunction and also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules of permanent injunction and also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules of permanent injunction and also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim stay. 1 and 2 CPC for interim 4. Upon notice, defendants no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement Upon notice, defendants no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement Upon notice, defendants no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement Upon notice, defendants no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement ated that as per directions of the and reply to the injunction application. It was stated that as per directions of the and reply to the injunction application. It was st and reply to the injunction application. It was st
Decision
I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent In view of the above, The present civil revision petition is dismissed, findings of the courts below. The present civil revision petition is dismissed The present civil revision petition is dismissed findings of the courts below. accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 15, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document