Mutation No. 915 attested on 27th of August 1991, pursuant to the order of Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, appointing Bawa Seva Nanad Giri as Mohatamim Mandir Mahavirji Maharaj situated at Thandhar Tehsil Chenani constructed over land comprised in Survey No. 881, has generated a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents who are residents of village Thandhar Tehsil Chenani. 2. There is no dispute between the parties that the Temple was constructed in late sixties. They, however, dispute as to who had constructed it. The petitioner, Sadhu, claims it to have been constructed by him with the financial assistance provided to him by Chenani Hydel Power Project. The respondents, however, say that the Temple had been constructed by the villagers. 3. The records on the file, however, demonstrate that the land on which the Temple had been constructed and the other land appertenant thereto and in possession of the Temple, is owned neither by the petitioner nor by the villagers. It, on the other hand, vests in the State and is recorded as State-land. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, on the request of Bawa Seva Nand Giri, the writ petitioner, and on the recommendation of Tehsildar Chenani had appointed Bawa Sewa Nand Giri as Mohatamim (Manager) of the Temple and land in its possession. Gouri Dutt and other respondents, questioned this order of learned Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur dated 4.7.1991, which had resulted in attestation of mutation No. 915, before Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu and Kashmir, who vide his order dated 28th of May 2002, set aside the mutation, holding that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to appoint Mohatamim of Temple, Mosque and such like Institutions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner, Bawa Seva Nand Giri has approached this Court to seek a writ of certiorari to quash Financial Commissioners order dated 28th of May 2002 and to restore Deputy Commissioner, Udhampurs order dated 4.7.1991 and mutation No. 915 attested on 27th of August 1991. 6. Shri Swami Raj Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that reliance of Learned Financial Commissioner on Allan No. 13 was mis-placed as it had no application to the facts of the case and had application only to those lands, land revenue whereof stood exempted. 6. Shri Swami Raj Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that reliance of Learned Financial Commissioner on Allan No. 13 was mis-placed as it had no application to the facts of the case and had application only to those lands, land revenue whereof stood exempted. He submitted that the petitioner was a Mendicant of stature who was respected in the village by one and all and that his continuance as Mohatamim of the Temple would be for the betterment of the Temple and the villagers. He justified the order of Learned Deputy Commissioner by saying that the order of Deputy Commissioner was covered by Standing Order 23-A, governing Mutations. 7. Shri K. N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Standing Order 23-A was not applicable to fresh appointments of Mohatamim. According to the learned counsel, Standing Order 23-A would be applicable only where mutation had to be attested in respect of a person who was either an assignee of an already appointed Mohatamim or a Mohatamim already appointed as such. He further submitted that no mutation in favour of the petitioner was permissible because the land in question, over which the Temple had been constructed, was a State-land and the petitioner was not a permanent resident of the State. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records on the file. 9. The documents on the records and the version of the Revenue Officials indicate that the Temple had been constructed in the year 1968, though on the State-land and the petitioner was performing pooja etc. and managing the affairs of the Temple. Number of residents of the locality, which included some of the private respondents too, had supported the case set up by the petitioner that he had been performing Pooja and managing the affairs of the Temple. Communication No. CMD-Complaint/Establishment-2475 dated 29th of July 1976 from Executive Engineer, Civil Maintenance Division, Chenani to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Construction Circle No. II, Jammu supports the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition. This communication further indicates that respondent-Gouri Dutt Sharma had started raising illegal construction on the land in possession of the Temple and the petitioner had reported the matter to Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur. 10. This communication further indicates that respondent-Gouri Dutt Sharma had started raising illegal construction on the land in possession of the Temple and the petitioner had reported the matter to Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur. 10. Before considering the submissions of Learned counsel for the parties, reference to Standing Order No. 23-A needs to be made. 11. Standing Order 23-A, is the complete code in itself which refers to various types of mutations which may be attested by the Revenue Officers. It further refers to the procedure which is to be followed by such Officers in entering Mutations. It has been specifically provided in paragraph 104 of the Standing Order that transfers which are not recognized by law are void and cannot be enforced by mutations and that mutations cannot be carried out of a transaction which contravened an express provision of the statutory law. 12. The mutations which this Standing Order recognizes are as follows:-- (1) Succession (including succession by Khana Nashim daughter or adopted son); succession also includes succession on account of absence or on the occasion of re-marriage of widows or marriage of daughters. (2) Partition (Private or by order of a Revenue Officer). (3) Exchange. (4) Sale [x x x] (5) Mortgage (6) Redemption of mortgage (7) [Gift or bequest]. (8) [Nautor from Khata Khalsa] (9) Mills and Gharats (10) [to khata Khalsa including land taken up for roads, paths, Kuhls, etc; also dastbardari by owners.] 11. (A) Grant of, or affecting, [occupancy or protected tenancy right] (B) Alteration of rent. (C) Ejectment. (D) Dast bardari or relinquishment of cultivation. 12. [Leases including Wasidari grants) 13. Non-occupancy rights. 14. Mutation of names of [assignees) 15. Mutation of names of managers of temples, mosques or institutions. 16. Mutation of addition, alteration or excision of names of Sarbarahs of 6[minor female landholders in Kashmir Provice, including Frontier districts of Ladakh]. 17. Alterations relating to entries of Ghair Hazir or Ghair Qabiz. 18. Sehat Indraj 19. Tabdil Haqiyat 20. Transfers of area from one Mauza to another. 21. Alluvion, Diluvion. 22. Shamilat 23. Consolidation of holdings. 24. Decrees or orders passed under any law, [25. Mutations under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007]. 13. 17. Alterations relating to entries of Ghair Hazir or Ghair Qabiz. 18. Sehat Indraj 19. Tabdil Haqiyat 20. Transfers of area from one Mauza to another. 21. Alluvion, Diluvion. 22. Shamilat 23. Consolidation of holdings. 24. Decrees or orders passed under any law, [25. Mutations under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 2007]. 13. Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise any right in an Estate as landholder, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy or any person acquiring by inheritance or otherwise a right of protected tenancy, is entitled to seek mutation in his favour evidencing acquisition, or transfer of such right in the land in favour of such person. 14. Various clauses of the Standing Order thus demonstrate that existence of some right in the land is a sine-quo-non for attestation of mutation. 15. There is no record on the file indicating the appointment of the petitioner as a Mohatamim (Manager), as such, of the Temple, by any authorized functionary of the State or by any order of a Court of law acknowledging or recognizing the petitioner as a Mohatamim (Manager) of Temple Mahavirji Maharaj, Thandhar. 16. In absence of any such records or case set up by the petitioner in this behalf, mutation in favour of the petitioner as Mohatamim/Manager of the Temple, may not be justified unless Deputy Commissioner was found to have any authority to appoint the petitioner as Mohatamim of the Temple. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court as to how was the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur competent and authorized to appoint the petitioner as Mohatamim of the Temple. All that Shri Swami Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner urged in support of petitioners case was that Clause 19 (15) of Standing Order 23-A would cover the case of the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner was authorized to appoint the petitioner as Manager and direct attestation of mutation in this behalf. Paragraph 19 (15) of the Standing Order 23-A, reads as under:-- "19(15) Mutation of names of managers of temples, mosques or institutions.-- 17. This paragraph of the Standing Order, in my opinion, would be attracted only in those cases where the Managers of the Temples, Mosques or Institutions stood already appointed by the competent authority. Paragraph 19 (15) of the Standing Order 23-A, reads as under:-- "19(15) Mutation of names of managers of temples, mosques or institutions.-- 17. This paragraph of the Standing Order, in my opinion, would be attracted only in those cases where the Managers of the Temples, Mosques or Institutions stood already appointed by the competent authority. This paragraph of the Standing Order, does not in any way authorize the Deputy Commissioner to create fresh appointments of managers of Temples, Mosques or Institutions. 18. I, therefore, do not find any error in the order of learned Financial Commissioner when he holds that the Deputy Commissioner did not possess any jurisdiction to appoint new managers of Temples, Mosques or institutions. 19. That apart, there is no order by any authority of the State regularizing the possession of the petitioner or the Temple over the State-land. The Temple having been constructed on State-land, its Manager or Poojari, was not thus entitled to seek attestation of mutation either in his own name or in the name of the Temple, for un-authorized possession of the State-land cannot be permitted to be perpetuated with such type of mutations which are specifically prohibited in the Standing Order. 20. While hearing the case, I had enquired from the parties as to what was the real dispute between the parties and how could it be settled once for all. Grievance projected by Shri K. N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioner had been interfering in the right of the respondents and the public to visit the Temple for performing pooja and other activities relating thereto. According to the Learned counsel, the respondents too wanted to safeguard the interests of the Temple in the larger interest of the villagers. Learned counsel had suggested the appointment of a committee which may manage the affairs of the Temple. 21. Shri Swami Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was a Sadhu of stature and repute in the area and would not indulge in any such activity of interfering in the rights of the devotees including the respondents in their performing pooja etc. in the Temple, as projected by the learned counsel for respondents. 21. Shri Swami Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was a Sadhu of stature and repute in the area and would not indulge in any such activity of interfering in the rights of the devotees including the respondents in their performing pooja etc. in the Temple, as projected by the learned counsel for respondents. Shri Sharma, when confronted with the situation that no mutation could be attested because the land over which the Temple had been constructed was a State-land, suggested the appointment of a committee which may control the management of the petitioner, who according to the Learned counsel, had put in major part of his life in serving the people and the deity installed in the Temple. 22. I have considered the submissions and suggestions of learned counsel for the parties. It is true that no one has any right to perpetuate its unauthorized occupation over the State land, be it a Temple, Mosque or other Institution. The facts of the present case, however warrant some interim arrangement till the competent authority of the State Government takes an appropriate decision as to the regularization or otherwise of the possession of Temple over the State land which has continued for over a period of 38 years. This is particularly so in view of my finding in this petition that no one has any right to get a mutation attested if its occupation over the land was found to be un-authorized. The finding of this Court is likely to disturb the management of the Temple, position of the petitioner in the Temple and the possession of the Temple and the properties in its possession and occupation. 23. Considering all aspects of the matter and to ensure that villagers and others who had been visiting the Temple for satiation of their religious/spiritual quest may not get affected, it is considered just, proper and expedient to dispose of this petition with the following directions:-- 1. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur shall consider making appropriate recommendation to the competent authority of the State Government to consider regularization of the possession of the Temple and the land in its occupation keeping in view the user of the Temple and the land in its occupation by the villagers of village Thandhar for more than thirty eight years, within a period of three months. 2. 2. Until such time the State Government considers passing appropriate orders in this respect, the Temple and the land in its occupation shall remain under the over all control and supervision of Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur who will permit the petitioner to manage the affairs of the Temple and its properties subject however to his supervision and control. In the event of any complaint of mis-management, the Deputy Commissioner Udhampur may take such measures as he may deem fit and appropriate so to do, keeping in view the interests of the Temple and the devotees. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur is left free to supervise and control the affairs of the Temple either himself or through any other officer whom he may appoint in this behalf or through a Committee of villagers and officers appointed by him. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur shall ensure that the villagers and those who are desirous of visiting the Temple were allowed free access to the Temple. In the event of petitioners leaving his mortal frame, Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur may appoint such other Sadhu of stature as he may consider suitable to manage the affairs of the Temple under his supervision and control till such time the competent authority of the State Government takes appropriate decision on his recommendations. This petition is accordingly disposed of.