Punjab-Haryana High Court
Thakur Dwara vs Chd Adm And Anr on 3 September, 2014
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Surya Kant, Amol Rattan Singh
CWP No.9638 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.9638 of 2005
Date of decision: 03.09.2014
Shri Thakur Dwara
... Petitioner
versus
Chandigarh Administration & another
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate;
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents no.1 and 2.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate,
for respondent no.3.
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
This petition filed by Shri Thakur Dwara (Temple of Shri Raghu Nath Ji & Samadhian) of village Behlana, Chandigarh, through its Mahant Sukh Dass, seeks quashing of the notification dated 19.05.2004, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -2- Act"), as also the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, notified on 11.05.2005.
2. Vide the above-said notifications, the land belonging to the temple, including the "Dera" and the temple itself, in all measuring 13K- 10M was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of utilisation thereof for the 5th Signals Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Mohali, in village Behlana.
3. Both the notifications issued, under Sections 4 and 6, also invoked the urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act.
However, even though the urgency clause was invoked while issuing notification under Section 4, upon a representation made to the Administrator U.T., Chandigarh and the local Member of Parliament, a decision was taken by the respondent Administration, on 04.08.2004, that objections which may be filed by the petitioner, under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, be examined and considered.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner through the 'Mahant', filed objections under Section 5-A on 30.11.2004.
The contention of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given, upon the objection under Section 5-A having been filed and that no decision with regard to the objections was ever conveyed to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and thereafter the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11.05.2005, again invoking Section 17(4) under the Act.
VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -3-
5. As per the contents of the petition, the ancestors of Mahant Sukh Dass Bawa, are residents of village Behlana in the Thakhur Dwara Complex for 500 years and the entire family of the Mahant looks after the temple, along with "ten Samadhian" constructed upon the land around the temple.
As per the record of rights, annexed with the petition, for the year 1990-91, the ownership of the land is shown to be in the names of Raghbir Dass, Suraj Parkash Dass, Chela Luxmi Dass and Chela Harnam Dass. They are also shown to be in cultivating possession of the land.
6. It is further stated in the petition that the temple has a large number of devotees visiting it and that the marble idol of Lord Rama measuring about 30" x 9" has been certified to be an "antiquity" that dates back to the 18th century approximately, in respect of which a certificate by the Registering Officer, Cultural Affairs, Archaeology and Museums, Punjab, Chandigarh, was issued in terms of Rule 12 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Rules, 1973. A copy of the certificate has been annexed with the petition.
7. The petitioner further states that originally the Mahants of Thakur Dwara had 53K-19M of land in village Behlana, but presently are left with 13K-10M only, the rest having already been acquired in the year 1999, without objection from the Mahants.
In fact, it is stated that the 13K-10M which are now with the petitioner were exempted from acquisition, upon a joint petition made by the Mahant and the Gram Panchayat of village Behlana and that the Chandigarh Administration (for short 'the administration') had allowed VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -4- adequate provision for grant of an approach road to the Thakur Dwara while formulating the plan of the entire area, as conveyed by the Joint Secretary Coordination, Chandigarh Administration, to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Behlana, vide his letter dated 23.06.1999.
8. The contention further is that despite the assurance given vide the above-mentioned letter, with regard to adequate provision being made while formulating the plan for the entire area, no approach road was given to the Dera, leading to the petitioner filing an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, which is stated to have not been decided, though, as per letter dated 01.02.2002 from the Land Acquisition Officer to the Finance Secretary of the Administration, requesting that the fencing made by the Central Reserve Police Force on the acquired land does not allow the residents to go to the temple/Dera and as such necessary orders in that regard be passed.
9. Reiterating that the temple being 400 to 500 years old has large followers, and therefore needs to be exempted, the petitioner relies upon what is referred to as a decision dated 27/29.11.2000, formulating a policy for exemption of a religious structure, if it is a "pucca" structure, from acquisition.
10. Though the copy of the policy decision dated 27/29.11.2000 further states that a notification in that regard be issued, no such notification has been annexed with the petition either by the petitioner or the respondents, though the respondents administration has admitted to the existence of the policy, with riders, more on which would be discussed further ahead.
VIKAS CHANDER2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -5-
11. The petitioner then relies upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2000, passed in CWP No.8094 of 2000, which took note of the above policy and disposed of that petition, on the assurance of the State Counsel that in case a representation was made for exemption in respect of the Church building which was subject matter of the petition, the said representation would be decided in terms of the policy.
12. The petition also highlights exemptions granted in respect of other religious bodies, from various acquisition proceedings in different areas of Chandigarh. The reference is to four Gurdwaras, four temples, two 'Samadhis' and two other building run by religious institutions, in various parts of Chandigarh.
13. The petitioner has further relied upon an interim order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, on 26.04.2001, in favour of the two petitioners of another petition, CWP No.15300 of 2000, who sought exemption from acquisition, of their residential house built on 7½ marlas of the land that was acquired in the year 1999-2000.
14. In the present case, a Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice on 08.07.2005, had stayed dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question and thereafter, vide different interim orders, a limited number of devotees were allowed to visit the temple on two specific occasions in July 2010 and July 2012, after due frisking etc. by the Central Reserve Police Force.
15. Two replies have been filed on behalf of the three respondents, one on behalf of the Administration and the Land Acquisition Officer of the Union Territory, Chandigarh and the second on behalf of the Commandant, VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -6- 5th Signals Battalion, CRPF, Hallomajra, Chandigarh, who was impleaded as respondent no.3, vide order dated 20.02.2007.
16. In the reply of the Administration, preliminary objections/submissions have been taken/made that the land of 13K-10M can neither be exempted from acquisition nor even can a regular passage be provided through the acquired land, to the temple/Dera because of security reasons and apprehended "Fidayeen" attacks on the CRPF Camp, which would be divided in two parts if such a passage is provided.
The reply further states that though the CRPF had agreed to surrender land earlier acquired beyond the Dera area, to the Dera Management, so that the Dera area could be segregated, the offer was rejected by the Pujari of the Dera, upon being asked to deposit the compensation received, along with 15% interest accruing thereupon.
As per the reply, despite repeated attempts to find some solution, by discussing the matter with the Pujari, as also with the Sarpanch of the village, the matter could not be settled due to the "stubborn/unreasonable" attitude of the Pujari.
17. With regard to the security issue, a letter dated 23.06.2003, from the Additional Director General, Central Reserve Police Force to the Secretary (Finance), Chandigarh Administration, has been annexed with the reply, a perusal of which shows that the area of the petitioner could not be exempted from acquisition due to security reasons.
The same position was reiterated vide letter dated 04.02.2005. VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -7-
18. As regards the policy decision dated 27/29.11.2000, exempting pre-existing permanent religious structure from acquisition, the reply states that, firstly, the police decision was not a blanket one and contained certain conditions and, secondly, in view of the location of the temple structure and the land, wholly within the area acquired for the CRPF, the same could not be exempted even in terms of the policy, for security reasons.
19. The reply also states that the area is actually being used for the residence of the Mahant and his family and is being disguised as a temple which has no large following or social relevance, as would be evident from the dilapidated condition of the structures. As such, the existence of the temple is alleged to be, in the reply, a ploy in order to save the land being used by the Mahant.
20. As regards objections filed under Section 5-A, the reply of the Land Acquisition Officer explicitly states that due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner on 30.11.2004 after giving him notice and that the Mahant of the Thakur Dwara appeared before the LAO alongwith his counsel and it was only thereafter, that the report with regard to the objections, was sent to the competent authority on 25.04.2005, after consideration of which the declaration under Section 6 was notified on 11.05.2005.
21. The reply filed on behalf of the CRPF which also, in essence, reiterates what is stated in the reply of the administration, additionally &, importantly states further that even after acquisition of the area, the CRPF would not deny anyone his right to pay respects to the 'Dera' and the 'Samadhis' existing in it, after proper frisking of such persons and VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -8- establishing their identity. It is specifically stated that the 'Samadhis' would not be demolished and the remaining building of the premises can house a temple and other religious structures.
22. A replication was filed in reply to the written statement of the Administration, more or less reiterating what is stated in the petition, but at the same time denying that any alternative solution was ever offered by the respondents and that they are still ready for an alternative solution, to save the heritage of the temple.
It is also stated in the replication that there is actually no threat of "Fidayeen" attacks, even if a passage is granted to the Dera premises as no untoward incident has ever taken place in the area.
23. The replication further states that the area under acquisition already having been exempted from earlier acquisition proceedings, there can be no fresh acquisition and, as such, the entire process would be barred by law.
24. Addressing arguments, shri Arun Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, basically reiterated all that we have reproduced above from the pleadings, and further relied upon the under given three judgments of the Supreme Court, to submit that the acquisition process itself was bad, not having been sanctioned by a competent authority. The judgements relied upon by him are Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil and others v. State of Gujarat and others(1996) 2 SCC 26, Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others (2013) 1 SCC 403 and Gurbinder Kaur Brar and another v. Union of India and others (2013) 11 SCC 228. VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -9-
25. Sh. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2, i.e. the Chandigarh Administration and the Land Acquisition Officer of the Union Territory respectively, and Sh. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, i.e. the Commandant, 5th Signal Battalion CRPF, both submitted that undoubtedly the land in question, i.e. the Dera, Temple and Samadhis, initially were not acquired due to existence of the religious place, during acquisition proceedings that culminated in the award dated 18.01.2000, by which 63 acres of villages Behlana and Hallomajra had been acquired for the CRPF. However, subsequently, the Para Military Forces bounded its territory that was acquired, resulting in the land presently in question being completely cut off from the area outside the boundary, as the 'Dera' land is surrounded on all sides by the rest of the CRPF campus.
Due to this fencing, villagers started protesting inaccessibility of the Temple and approached the local Member of Parliament, who recommended that a pathway be provided from within the CRPF Campus, in order to allow people to access the Temple and the Dera. Though it was initially agreed to, albeit reluctantly by the CRPF, they subsequently expressed their inability to allow this situation to continue as the passage bifurcated the CRPF Camp and thereby created a security hazard for all time. As such, the matter of alternative allotment of land in lieu of the land where the Temple and Dera is situated, was taken up, including the release of land earlier acquired in the year 2000. However with the Dera Mahant remaining adamant, that could not fructify.
In this regard, learned, counsel pointed to the letters written by the CRPF authorities, including the Additional Director General, North- VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -10- West Zone, CRPF, Chandigarh, on the 23rd of June, 2003, ( already referred to earlier by us,)pointing to the "immense security hazards due to unchecked frequent movement of civilians associated with the owner of the property."
26. Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out from the site-plan that the land in question, infact is wholly surrounded either by the CRPF and immediately outside the CRPF boundary, by Air Force and Army campuses. On one side of the CRPF boundary, ofcourse, village Behlana exists and it is from this point that the passage to the Dera is stated to be running along the boundary wall, but at a later point the path runs through the main campus to the Dera itself, after touching the boundary wall with the Air Force Station.
It is obvious that though, possibly, a passage along the boundary wall can be provided even perhaps by pushing the boundary in by about 4 to 10 feet, i.e. the width of the passage; however, the said passage eventually has to turn towards the Dera which is located well inside the CRPF campus and does not abut the boundary wall. Obviously, it is at this point that the security threat becomes maximised. Thus even if the boundary were to be pushed back (though that is not an option discussed), the security issue would not be resolved, even if this option were to be considered.
27. Keeping in view the above, we have no doubt that even though it is religious structure which is sought to be acquired, which also includes some "Samadhis" and Residential buildings where the 'Mahant' and his family are stated to be residing, security of the area being of paramount importance, with not just the CRPF campus being existent there but also an Air Force and an Army campus being immediately adjacent to the CRPF VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -11- campus, the acquisition is indeed a necessity and the 'public purpose' of acquisition is beyond any pale of doubt.
The religious sentiments of the local followers of Temple or Dera, to our mind, have been well taken care of with the stand of the CRP coming in the written pleadings also, that they would maintain the structure, i.e. the Temple and Samadhis, and allow devotees to visit and pay obeisance even after the land is acquired, subject ofcourse to personal frisking and other security measures that would be taken. The CRPF has also assured that the Temple would be maintained with due respect, as religious places are maintained even for the Jawans and Officers of the force.
28. With regard to the contention of Mr. Jain that even as per the policy of the Administration itself, dated 27/29.11.2000, the temple deserves to be exempted from acquisition, we have examined the policy carefully and though it is not stated to have been notified as was recommended at the time when it was framed, however, even taking it as an accepted policy decision, in view of the fact that there is no denial thereto in the reply of the Administration, it is seen that the policy itself very clearly states that "if any of the pre-existing structures were to interfere with the main elements of planning, then such a structure shall be got acquired with the condition that it would be accommodated in the sites carved out in the lay out plan of the sector for religious structures." In such a situation, development charges etc. would be payable by the persons benefited by such conditional acquisition.
However, in the present case, the petitioner having specifically refused the shifting of the structure to an alternate site, even by release of VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -12- land earlier acquired, (and the respondents-CRPF specifically stating that it would allow devotees to pay obeisance at the temple and samadhis, as already noted,) we do not see how the said policy can be relied upon by the petitioner to contend that no religious structure can ever be acquired.
29. Coming next to the issue of discrimination which has been raised, also largely based on the above noted policy decision, once we have seen that the policy is not unconditional and cannot be universally applied to each and every situation, as per contents thereof itself, the ground of discrimination breaks down.
No doubt, other religious structures have been shown to have been released, but such those structures are not stated to have been within a high security area so as to draw a parity between the two situations .
30. As regards the contention that the petitioner was not heard on his objection filed under section 5-A, it is seen from the record that notices were issued by registered post to the petitioner, by the Land Acquisition Collector on 18.10.2004, requiring him to appear before him, so as to be heard on those objections on 30.11.2004. He being present, with his counsel is also recorded, after which a detailed report was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of hearing is rejected.
As such, on the above issues raised, we find absolutely no reason, to quash the acquisition process.
31. Having said that, however, we are now faced with the issue which has been stressed upon by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, i.e. that the acquisition process was not sanctioned by the competent VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -13- authority, i.e. the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, in terms of the law laid down in Surinder Singh Brars' and Gurbinder Kaur Brars' cases (supra) and is, therefore, vitiated on that ground itself.
32. With reference to the argument of Mr. Jain, it may be noticed that both the above cited judgments pertains to acquisition of land in Union Territory of Chandigarh. The point in issue may as to whether the Administrator, namely the Governor of Punjab has the competent authority to act as the appropriate Government or such a power could be excercised by his Advisor also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows:
"64. We may now advert to the Notification dated 25.02.1988 (set out in para 47) issued under Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act, vide which the Administrator directed that any power, authority or jurisdiction or any duty which he could exercise or discharge by or under the provisions of any law, rules or regulations as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be exercised or discharged by the Adviser except in class or class of cases enumerated in the Schedule. There is nothing in the language of Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred that the Administrator can delegate the power exercisable by 'the appropriate Government' under the act which was specifically entrusted to him by the President under Article 239(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the Notification dated 25.02.1988 cannot be relied upon for contending that the Administrator had delegated the power of 'the appropriate Government' to the Adviser." (empahsis applied)
33. To our mind, though in Surinder Singh Brars' case, the issue was mainly that procedure had not been followed so as to benefit some private interest of building/construction companies, however, the law laid down in that case, as also reiterated in Gurbinder Kaur Brars' case, as seen VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -14- above, is that it is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, alone, who is the Competent Authority to sanction acquisition proceedings in respect of any land sought to be compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that such authority cannot be delegated to the Advisor to the Administrator.
34. In the present case, we have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the Union Territory, who inturn has taken detailed instructions from the officers and officials of the Administration, and we have also scrutinised the record submitted to us carefully, to try and determine as to whether sanction for acquisition of the land was at any stage put up to the Administrator of the Union Territory or not. Unfortunately, as per the record put up to us, and as also candidly admitted by Mr. Sharma, on instructions from the officers deputed to assist him for the purpose, the matter relating to sanction for acquisition did not go beyond the Adviser to the Administrator.
We find that strange, because in the noting file, where the present acquisition proceedings have been dealt with for the acquisition of 13 Kanals and 10 Marlas of Land of Village Behlana, subsequent acquisition proceedings for the acquisition of 2.51 acres of land for providing an "Estate Trunk Storm Water Drainage Scheme for Defence Area, Village Behlana and Civil Area U.T. Chandigarh", have also been dealt with. Those acquisition proceedings, as is obvious, were also initiated by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894, but only after approval from the Administrator himself.
35. In the present case, his approval was not taken, so as to be an approval of the appropriate Government.
36. VIKAS CHANDER Next, on the issue of consideration of the objections filed under 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -15- section 5-A of the Act, the Supreme Court held as under, in Surinder Singh Brars' case :-
"71. The Special Secretary, Finance and the Adviser to the Administrator also failed to act in consonance with the mandate of Section 5-A (2) read with Section 6(1). They could not muster courage of expressing an independent opinion on the issue of compliance with Section 5-A and need of the land for the specified public purposes. The noting recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance, which has been extracted hereinabove shows that the officer had virtually reproduced what the Administrator had mentioned in his letter dated 31.07.2006. The Adviser went a step further. He merely appended his signatures on the note recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance forgetting that in terms of the aforementioned two sections "the appropriate Government" is required to take decision after considering the report of the LAO. The least which can be said about the manner in which the Adviser approved the note prepared by the Special Secretary, Finance is that there was abject failure on the part of the officer concerned to discharge his duty despite the fact that he was entrusted with the onerous task of taking a decision on behalf of "the appropriate Government" after considering the reports of the LAO. The casual manner in which the senior officers of the Chandigarh Administration dealt with the serious issue of the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total lack of respect for the constitutional provision contained VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -16- in Article 300-A, the law enacted by Parliament, that is, the LA Act and interpretation thereof by the courts. It seems that the officers were overawed by the view expressed by the Administrator and the instinct of self-preservation prompted them not to go against the wishes of the Administrator who wanted that additional land be acquired in the name of expansion of the IT Park despite the fact that a substantial portion of the land acquired for Phase II had been allotted to a private developer."
Therefore, even the objection filed under section 5-A, and the Collectors'' report thereupon, have to be approved by the Administratior himself, as the "appropriate Government".
37. The report of the Land Acquisition Collector is on record. In the report, the contention of the petitioner, that the land having been exempted from acquisition earlier, no change of circumstance exists between 1999-2000 till 2004-2005, i.e. between the earlier acquisition proceedings for the larger tract of land for the CRPF and the acquisition proceedings in question, has been dealt with. The Land Acquisition Collector has stated that the land in question was never included in the earlier proceedings and as such, the contention itself is unfounded. (Obviously, the land was left out, at the initial stage itself). The Collector, in his report, further referred to the offer made by the CRPF, to surrender the acquired land beyond the Dera Area, so that in view of the 13Kanals & 10 Marlas now sought to be acquired, which fell absolutely within the campus. That offer was also rejected by the Dera, as already noticed earlier. VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -17-
Thereafter, the report of the LAC, as per the noting file, went up to the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, who noted as follows:
"A condition will be mentioned in the award that the CRPF would not demolish the Dera. They have agreed to maintain it as such. Submitted for approval.
Sd/-
6.5.05"
Thereafter, the file noting shows that the matter was put up to the Adviser to the Administrator (AA) who simply signed it on the same date, i.e. 06.05.2005, after which it was down-marked back to the Finance Secretary.
37. As such, neither the notification to be issued under S.4 for initiation of acquisition proceedings, not the report of the LAC on the objections filed u/S.5-A, were put up to the competent authority exercising powers of the appropriate Government, as held to be so in the aforesaid cases by the Apex Court, i.e. the Administrator of U.T. Chandigarh. Hence, considering the above factual position, in the light of the ratio of the judgments in Surinder Singh Brars' and Gurbinder Kaur Brars' cases (supra), we have no other option but to quash the acquisition proceedings.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notifications dated 19.05.2004 and 11.05.2005, issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are hereby quashed, giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the new Act (The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, VIKAS CHANDER 2014.09.05 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.9638 of 2005 -18- 2013), if the acquisition of the land is still considered necessary.
There will be no order as to costs.
However, since the matter pertains to the security of the CRPF campus, status quo shall be maintained for a period of six months by parties and the interim arrangement for the visit of devotees, to the temple on two occasions as directed by this Court in July 2010 and July 2012, shall also continue to operate during this period of six months.
(SURYA KANT) (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
03.09.2014
dinesh/vcgarg
VIKAS CHANDER
2014.09.05 10:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh