CC/1202/2010 of C.G.V. Baran Vs Sri Lt. Col. MORIS on 30 December 2010

ORDER :

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the interimorder dated 29.11.2006 in WPMP.No.31300 of 2006 in WP.No.24478

of 2006, which reads as under:

“Pending further orders, there shall be a directionto the respondents not to prevent the petitioners fromrendering daily rituals and pooja in the temple situatedin GLR Nos.240 and 241 of Secunderabad Cantonmentarea.”

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent; and perused thecounter-affidavit filed by the respondent.

W.P.No.24478 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners hereinseeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in interferingwith the administration and management of the temples situated inGLR Nos.240 and 241 which is classified as B3 Lands (original GLRNo.239 and classified as A1 Defence land) in Secunderabad Cantonment as arbitrary and illegal.

It was pleaded in the writ petition that one Chinna Thambi who was Hawaldar in Regiment No.675 of L Battery of Royal HorseArtillery from Tiruchinapalli had constructed two temples in the year1894. The said temples are admittedly situated in GLR Nos.240 and241 of Secunderabad Cantonment area. It was clamed that the landupon which the temples were constructed was given as a grant toChinna Thambi by the British Army and that from the year 1894 hecontinued in possession, rendering services in the temples. Thepetitioners, who claim to be the successors of the said ChinnaThambi, contended that the said temples were being managed andadministered by their families for the past more than a century.

Alleging that the respondents started preventing the petitionersand their family members from administering and managing thetemples in question, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24478 of 2006 inwhich the above extracted interim order was passed on 29.11.2006.

It is pleaded in the contempt case that in compliance with theorder passed by this Court, the respondents in the writ petition hadinitially permitted the petitioners to administer and maintain thetemples in question with certain restrictions. However on 15.10.2010the respondent herein had locked the temple and prevented thepetitioners from entering the temple and performing pooja in spite ofthe fact that the order dated 29.11.2006 has been in force. It is alsoalleged that the Army people were deployed to watch the temple roundthe clock and the devotees were prevented from entering the templearea.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, all theallegations made by the petitioners have been denied and it is statedthat the temples in question which were admittedly located in theDefence lands were constructed by the local Military Authorities out of Regimental Funds and they were vested in the Officer Commandingthe Unit. It is also contended that the day-to-day administration of thetemples and maintenance of the structures were being carried out bythe Unit in occupation of the land and no private individual was

entrusted with the management and administration of the temples atany point of time. It is alleged that the petitioners and some others,having encroached upon the Defence land had erected some dwellingunits and started residing therein. In the circumstances, evictionproceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants Act, 1971) and the petitioners herein weredeclared as encroachers and removal of the encroachments wasordered. The petitioners preferred CMA.No.59 of 2005 on the file ofthe Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, but the same wasdismissed. Against the judgment dated 22.7.2006, though thepetitioners preferred W.P.No.27217 of 2006 and the same is pending,no interim order has been passed suspending the operation of thejudgment in C.M.A.No.59 of 2005. So far as the allegations made inthe contempt case is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavitthat the temples are being managed out of the Regimental Funds anddaily poojas and rituals are being performed regularly. The soldiers,Army personnel, neighbours including the petitioners are beingpermitted and no restrictions are imposed at any point of time upon thedarshan, pooja and rituals in the said temple. Thus it was pleadedthat the respondents had never flouted the interim order passed bythis Court in W.P.No.24478 of 2006.

As could be seen from the pleadings narrated above, thetemples in question are located in the Defence land. Though the saidfact is not disputed by the petitioners, it is contended that the land wasgiven by the British Army to late Chinna Thambi by way of grant andthat he had constructed the temples in question and maintained thesame. It is also claimed that the petitioners, being the successors ofthe founder of the said temples, have been performing variousreligious functions and poojas according to Vaishnava Siddantham. Itis also the specific case of the petitioners that the land which is thesubject-matter of W.P.No.27217of 2006 is entirely different from theland covered by the temples in question.

However the respondent disputed the claim of the petitioners. It is also relevant to note that the order dated 29.11.2006 which isalleged to have been violated by the respondent is only an interimorder and the main writ petition is still pending. A detailedcounter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition inDecember, 2006 itself and the writ petition is in the fair list for hearing.It is also evident from the material placed before this Court that thetemples in question have not been closed. Even according to thepetitioners they are allowed to visit the temple and do pooja and dailyrituals along with other devotees. However their grievance is that theyare not allowed to administer and perform the rituals on their own asper their traditions which are claimed to have been performed by theirfamily right from the date of establishment of temples.

Whether the petitioners themselves are entitled to maintain thetemples and to administer and perform the rituals is a question whichrequires consideration in the main writ petition. Admittedly the orderdated 29.11.2006 is an interim order which was passed without takinginto consideration the version of the respondent. Having regard to thefact that the temples in question are situated in GLR Nos.240 and 241of Secunderabad Cantonment Area which is under the control ofDefence and the petitioners suffered an order of eviction under thePublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 andthe same was also confirmed on appeal in CMA.No.59 of 2005,particularly in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners that theirpredecessor-in-title had constructed the temple and that for the pastseveral years they had been maintaining and administering the templeaffairs is seriously in dispute, I do not find any force in thecontention that the alleged action of the respondents amounts to wilfuland deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated29.11.2006. Unless and until the petitioners succeed in the main writpetitions which are already fair-listed, it cannot be concluded that thepetitioners are entitled either to manage the temple or perform the rituals as they like without any control by the respondents.

Hence the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.

____________G. ROHINI, J.

Dt. 30.12.2010

gbs