Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 525 (HP)

RAM DIAL v. SATYA DEVI

2013-06-12

SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. THE present Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh in execution petition, whereby the petitioner herein, was restrained from obstructing in the repair of sarai/Dharamshala, by changing its roof. 2. THE facts as emerges are that petitioner Ram Dial was plaintiff in the suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land filed before the learned trial Court against the respondents on the basis of title. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement denying title of the petitioner, but claimed possession over 0.6 marlas of land out of the suit land in Khasra No. 345/155, which consisted of temple of Lord Shiva over 0-2 marlas and sarai over 0-4 marlas. It was their case that inhabitants of that area including respondents have been worshiping the said deity and performing religious functions from time to time. Thus, the respondents claimed the possession of general public on it who had also constructed sarai and the temple. 3. THE learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 179/1 of 2002 vide detailed judgment and decree dated 16.3.2005, decreed the suit partly restraining the respondents from interfering in other part of the suit land, in any manner, whatsoever save and except the user of the temple and sarai situated over the suit land over 0-6 marlas. It was in this context that an application for execution under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the respondents herein against the present petitioner and in these proceedings, the impugned order dated 13.5.2011 was passed by the Court below, whereby the petitioner herein was restrained from causing interference. 4. WHEN the matter was taken up by this Court on 28.3.2013, the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the matter can be settled once for all, in case 0-6 marlas of land existing on the spot, which was donated by the father of the petitioner Ram Dial for constructing temple/sarai out of his own land comprised of Khasra No. 345/155 aforesaid, is got demarcated from a Revenue Officer. It was also agreed that the parties to the lis as well as other worshipers may visit the temple and use sarai after defining the boundaries and raising boundary wall around 0-6 marlas of land separating the other portion of the land of the petitioner and making provision for its entry to the temple and sarai by its worshipers. On the request of the parties, this Court appointed Naib Tehsildar, Nalagarh as a Local Commissioner to resolve the dispute on the spot, on whose intervention and demarcation of the land, the matter could be settled once for all. Local Commissioner visited the spot in the presence of the parties and submitted his report after its demarcation in the presence of the parties, which is placed on record. 5. THOUGH, the petitioner herein did not feel satisfied with the demarcation conducted on the spot, but it was made clear to him in the Court that on demarcation, the land was found to be 0-4 marlas as against 0-6 marlas, over which the temple/sarai is situated. 6. THE matter was taken up for conciliation by this Court. Parties were called. Shri Ram Dial, petitioner was present. He admitted that he was present on the spot during demarcation, which was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar. The temple and sarai were clearly separated from his house. He has no objection in case there is separate entry to the temple as well as to sarai for the visitors to the aforesaid property on 0-4 marlas and the said entry is used as a common path. This 0-4 marlas is stated to have been fenced by brick wall on its three sides. He stated that the 4th portion shall remain open for being used as an entry to the temple and the sarai by the worshipers. He also stated before this Court that the respondent-Committee shall not interfere into his remaining land/house. To this effect, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 11.6.2013, which is countersigned by his learned Counsel. The seventh respondent Shri Ram Gopal was also present. He also admitted to the above position. According to him, petitioner's other property is now separate from the temple and sarai (0-4 marlas). He also stated that the temple is on the government land. The temple and sarai are fenced on three sides and the 4th side is open. The seventh respondent Shri Ram Gopal was also present. He also admitted to the above position. According to him, petitioner's other property is now separate from the temple and sarai (0-4 marlas). He also stated that the temple is on the government land. The temple and sarai are fenced on three sides and the 4th side is open. The passage shall remain open for every worshiper whosoever enters premises and intends to live in sarai on short term basis. He being Up-Pradhan of the Temple Committee and Shyam Lal its Pradhan, who is also present in the Court, have admitted to the above position. It was also stated by Ram Gopal that the petitioner shall also not interfere into 0-4 marlas of land. However, he has right to worship and enter into the temple premises. Similarly, the respondents will not interfere into the land and house of the petitioner. His statement stands recorded. He also admitted the above position to be correct. 7. IN view of this, the matter stands fully and finally settled inter-se the parties. Instead of 0-6 marlas of land, the respondent-Committee shall have control and occupation over 0-4 marlas, on which temple/sarai is situated. They shall not close its aforesaid entry, in any manner and would allow the petitioners as well as other worshipers to offer prayer in the temple and allow stay of the visitors in the sarai, in case of any need, as per their norms. However, the respondents shall not interfere into the remaining land of the petitioner over and above 0-4 marlas of land aforesaid under occupation of the temple/sarai. The petitioner shall also not interfere into 0-4 malas of temple and sarai, unnecessarily. 8. IN view of the above, the impugned order stands modified to the extent aforesaid. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.