Two persons claiming right over temple land not real owners: HC

BOX: The case

– Mewat Collector conferred ownership rights on two ‘dholidars’ — a person using land for charitable purpose without paying rent — and the order was upheld by Gurugram Commissioner

– The gram panchayat concerned filed an appeal before the state’s Financial Commissioner

– During the pendency of the appeal, 64 acres of temple property in the Mewat area was sold by the dholidars to the petioners and two others seven years ago

– The Financial Commissioner held that the authorities had wrongly conferred ownership upon the two respondents

– HC upheld the state Financial Commissioner’s orders

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 23

More than seven years after 64 acres of temple property in the Mewat area was sold, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld state Financial Commissioner’s orders dismissing a petition filed by two persons claiming right over the land as “dholidars” — a person using land for charitable purpose without paying rent.

The Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Parkash ruled the two respondents were not owners by any stretch of imagination. The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after a petition was filed against the State of Haryana and other respondents by Fazri, who was a subsequent purchaser. He had challenged the order dated July 23, 2019, passed by the Financial Commissioner, vide which orders passed by Mewat Collector in February 2013 and Gurugram Commissioner in March 2014 were set aside.

The Bench observed an application for land’s ownership rights was filed at the instance of the temple manager. The collector conferred ownership rights and appeal filed by the gram panchayat concerned before Gurugram Commissioner against the order was dismissed. But during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner, the alleged dholidars sold 32 kanal vide sale deed dated April 11, 2013, to a builder and 32 kanal and 15 marla to the petitioner and two others on May 27, 2013.

The Bench asserted that the plea raised by the petitioner’s counsel regarding his client being a bonafide purchaser was without merit. The petitioner and others bought the property during the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below. As such, lis pendens would apply. The term indicates official notice that a lawsuit concerning real estate been filed.

The Bench asserted admitted position was that the petitioner and others had bought the land in question after Mewat Collector had conferred rights of ownership upon the two respondents and appeal was pending against the order before Gurugram Commissioner. It could not be said they were not aware of the litigation.

The Bench added it was settled position of law that a temple was an entity of its own, but had to work through individuals/caretakers. It was argued by the petitioner’s counsel that the temple was not an entity as it was a premise. But the Bench disagreed with the argument in view of the revenue record placed before it.

The Bench further added: “When the Financial Commissioner held that the authorities below had wrongly conferred ownership upon the two respondents, they could not have transferred a better title than what they had. As such, there arises no question of transferring perfect title upon subsequent purchasers.”