Fazri vs State Of Haryana And Others

Year,Owner,Possession,Nature of possession

1963-

64","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir Austhal dholidar ba

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   chela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin   Â

deh (When   translated   mean:s

Mandir   Austhal   Dholidar

through  caretaker/  Ahtmam

Sheetaldas    C hela    Dhyan

Dass, resident of the village)","Without paymentÂ

of rent  Â

for   religious

purposes Â

and  thus

exempted

1975-

76","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir Devala dholidar ba

Ahtmam    Sheetaldas    vald

Rupa   Sakin   deh   W(hen

translated   means:  Mandir

Devala   Dholidar   through

caretaker/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Ahtmam Sheetaldas   son   o f  Â

Rupa, resident of the village)",

1985-

86","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir  Devla  dholidar  ba

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   c hela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin   Â

deh (When   translated   mean:s

Mandir     Devla     Dholida

through  caretaker/  Ahtmam

Sheetaldas    C hela    Dhyan

Dass,    residents    of   Â

the village)","Without   Â

rent    for

religious   Â

purposes and thus

rexempted

1995-

96","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir  Devla  dholidar  va

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   c hela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin   Â

deh (When   translated   mean:s

Mandir Devla Dholidar and

caretaker/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Ahtmam Sheetaldas    Chela   Â

Dhyan Dass,    residents   Â

of    the village)","Without   Â

rent    for

religious     Â

purpose and thus

exempted

2000-

01","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir  Devla  dholidar  va

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   c hela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin   Â

deh (When   translated   mean:s

Mandir Devla Dholidar and

caretaker/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Ahtmam Sheetaldas    Chela   Â

Dhyan Dass,    residents   Â

of    the village)","Without   Â

rent    for

religious     Â

purpose and thus

exempted

2005-

06","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir  Devla  dholidar  va

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   c hela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin   Â

deh (When   translated   mean:s

Mandir Devla Dholidar and

caretaker/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Ahtmam",

,,"Sheetaldas    Chela    Dhya

Dass,    residents    o f    the

village)",n

2008-

09","Panchayat

Deh","Mandir  Devla  dholidar  v

ahtmam   Sheetaldas   c hela

Dhyan    dass    Sakin    d

(When   translated   means: MandirÂ

Devla Dholidar and

caretaker/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Ahtmam Sheetaldas    C hela   Â

Dhyan Dass,    residents   Â

of    the village)","aWithout   Â

rent    fo

erheligious     Â

p urpose and thus

exempted

Â

 [5.1] A perusal of the afore-referred revenue record would show that the land in question was given by the Gram Panchayat for a temple in the,,,

Village. This temple was being looked after by a caretaker-Sheetal Dass, whose children (impleaded as respondents no 4 and 5) have claimed right,",,,

title and interest over the land in question by invoking the provisions of Act, 2010.",,,

[6] Although the writ petitioner has given us the translated versions of the document as Annexure P-8 (colly), but keeping in view the nature of",,,

controversy involved, we have undertaken the exercise to look into the vernacular and translated them. Once the vernaculars are pursued then it",,,

becomes amply clear that the land in question was given to the Mandir as Dholi and not to the individuals as claimed by the writ petitioner. As per,,,

Jamabandi for the years 1963-64, 1975-76 and 1985-86, the land in question is reflected under the ownership of Panchayat Deh with possession of",,,

Mandir Aushtal/ Devla as Dholidar through its caretaker Sheetaldass. These entries however have changed with passage of time as being in,,,

possession of Mandir Devla Dholidar and caretaker Sheetaldas. No document has been placed before us, which would show the reason for change in",,,

revenue record. Consequently, the subsequent entries where ‘Ba’ has been changed to ‘Va’ are without authority and thus liable to be",,,

ignored.,,,

[7] Even if the subsequent entries are taken on their face value still, they do not advance the case of writ petitioner. Although at first blush these",,,

entries might seem to suggest that an individual Sheetaldass is in possession as dholidar of the land, however the entries of revenue record have to be",,,

read jointly. Sheetaldas has never been recorded in his individual capacity to be in possession. His possession has always been co-related with the,,,

Mandir and that also as a Chela of Dhyan Dass. Meaning thereby, the Mandir has a seat for a Mohatmim/ caretaker/ahtmim/Manager, who is",,,

entrusted with the management of the temple Devla. This, fact becomes even more clear when the entry of nature of possession is seen, which",,,

depicts that no rent is being charged because it is given for religious purposes. Hence, once it is established that the possession of Sheetaldass was",,,

that of caretaker of Mandir Devla, it cannot be said that the nature of his possession was that of a Dholidar.",,,

[7.1] It is settled position of law that a temple is an entity of its own but has to work through individuals/ caretakers. Although, it has been argued by",,,

the counsel for the petitioner that the mandir is not an entity as it is premises, however, we disagree with the said argument raised by the petitioner in",,,

view of the revenue record placed before us. It is for the donor to decide to whom it considers as an entity and in the present case the Gram,,,

Panchayat has conferred Dholi rights upon the temple.,,,

[7.2] Consequently, we hold that the Financial Commissioner had rightly passed the impugned order dated 23.07.2019 (P-7) dismissing the petition filed",,,

by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 claiming right over the land as Dholidars.,,,

[8] As far as the plea raised by learned counsel regarding his client being a bonafide purchaser is concerned, we are of the view that the said plea is",,,

without merit for two reasons:,,,

[8.1] Firstly, the petitioner and others had bought the property during the pendency of the proceedings pending before the authorities below and",,,

therefore lis-pendens would apply. It is an admitted position that after Collector had conferred rights of ownership upon respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and,,,

the appeal was pending against the said order before the Commissioner, Gurgaon, the petitioner and others had bought the land in question. Thus, it",,,

cannot be said that they were not aware about the litigation.,,,

[8.2] Secondly, when the Financial Commissioner held that authorities below had wrongly conferred ownership upon respondent Nos. 4 & 5, then they",,,

could not have transferred a better title than what they had. Hence, there arises no question of transferring perfect title upon subsequent purchasers.",,,

[8.3] Since, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are not owners by any stretch of imagination then no protection can be given to the petitioner, as he had knowingly",,,

bought litigation from them.,,,

[9] In this view of the matter, finding no merit, instant writ petition is hereby ordered to be dismissed.",,,