- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 06.04.2009, passed by the District Judge, Panchkula, while exercising the powers of the Tribunal under the Haryana Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Act, 1991 (for short, the "Act"). Vide the said order, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs has been granted to respondent No. 2 on account of her extinction of right as a Pujaran and 8% per annum interest was also granted from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 29.09.2006, till payment. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the claim filed by the respondent-Pujaran was seeking compensation of Rs. 1.5 crores in lieu of her extinction of right. It was her case that she was in possession of various lands, detailed in the petition and she was appointed as Pujaran of the temple on 27.07.1953 by the Government of PEPSU. The entire shrine vested with the Board constituted under the Act of 1991. CWP No. 14124 of 1991 was filed before this Court challenging the vires of the Act and the same was dismissed on 17.12.2003.
(2.) The claimant had filed application in that petition, praying for the payment by the Board, in lieu of her extinction of the right and this Court, vide order dated 12.12.2005, directed the claimant to approach the Tribunal constituted vide notification dated 09.12.2005. Earlier, the Civil Suit, filed by the claimant was dismissed in default. Accordingly, she claimed a sum of Rs. 30 lacs @ Rs. 1.5 lacs per month, from the Patiala Wala Mandir and Rs. 24 lacs on account of her eviction from the houses adjoining the temple. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 15 lacs had been claimed for the agricultural land and Rs. 31 lacs on account of loss of right of worship, mental agony, harassment etc. The respondent-Board contested the petition by taking various preliminary objections and denying that she was a Pujaran. The present petitioners No. 1 to 3 did not file any written statement and adopted the reply of the Board. The claimant-respondent examined herself as PW1 and examined Shri Raj Kumar Garg as PW2 and one Anil Joshi as PW3 and brought on record various documents as Exhibits P1 to P3. The present petitioners examined Pandit Sudarshan Kumar as RW1.
(3.) The Tribunal noticed that vide Exhibit P1, the claimant was appointed as a Pujaran to perform duties in place of her husband and to receive bandhan etc. Reference was made to various correspondences to show that she had written to the Government for making proper arrangement for counting the offerings received in the temple during yearly Ashtami Mela and the Government had acted on it and deputed an official to take account of the offerings. The Tehsildar, namely, Raj Kumar Garg, was also examined and the inventory (Exhibit P3), whereby 1/3rd share had been given to the claimant was taken into consideration to record a finding that the claimant was the Pujaran and on account of the operation of the Act, the petitioner ceased to render services to the deity and had no right in the land of the Shrine. As per Section 19 of the Act, the right of Pujaris were to be extinguished with the commencement of the Act and the compensation was to be paid by the Board, in lieu of the extinction of their rights. Relevant portion reads as under: "Section 19(1):- All rights of pujaris shall stand extinguished from the date of commencement of this Act; Provided that the Government may appoint a Tribunal who, after giving personal hearing to the Pujaris and the representatives of the Board, shall recommend compensation to be paid by the Board in lieu of extinction of their rights. While making its recommendations to the Board, the Tribunal shall have due regard to the income which the pujaris had been deriving: Provided further that where a pujari surrenders his right to compensation and offers himself for employment to the Board, the Board shall cause his suitability for such employment to be adjudged and may offer him employment in case he is found suitable by the selection committee to be appointed for the purpose subject to the pujaris giving an undertaking to abide by the administrative and disciplinary control of the Board in accordance with the rules made under this Act.";