KARAM CHAND AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:48512
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.5845 of 2026
Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
Karam Chand and Ors.
……...Petitionerss
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitionerss: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and
Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
__________________________________________________________________________

(Oral)
Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.11.2025
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh, in Case No. 13/DC/Misc./Kardar/2024 titled as Sh. Krishan
Baldev versus State of H.P. and Anr., whereby order dated 16.01.2024
came to be reviewed in review petition filed by the respondent No. 4 under
Section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (in short the “Act”,
petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying
therein for the following main reliefs:
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
2
High Court of H.P.
"a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-15)
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu reviewing her order dated
16.01.2024 without any authority to do so.
b) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue writ of
certiorari quashing the report submitted by the Additional District
Magistrate, Kullu to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu vide forwarding
letter dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-12).
c) That this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to issue writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned mutation carried out in favour of
respondent No. 4 vide mutation dated 07.02.2026 (Annexure P-16)
on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu
dated 26.11.2025.
d) That this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to issue writ of
mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioners No. 1
to perform the duties of Kardar in terms of the consensus arrived by
the Hariyans in the meeting held on 13.05.2017 and 18.07.2017
alongwith the deities, and further restrain the respondent No. 4 from
interfering in the working of the Devta Triyugi Narayan Dhyar in any
manner.”
2. Quintessential facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on
record by the respective parties are that predecessor-in-interest of
respondent No. 4, namely Purshotam Ram was appointed as Kardar, in his
personal capacity, of Devta Triyugi Narayan, Phati Diyar, Kothi Kotkandi,
Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. However, subsequently,
on the basis of complaint made by the petitioners herein, above named
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
3
High Court of H.P.
Purshotam Ram was removed from the post of Kardar vide order dated
22.04.2017 (Annexure P5).
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, above named Purshotam Ram filed an appeal
before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P7) on the ground of
maintainability.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by
the learned Divisional Commissioner, Sh.Purshotam Ram filed a writ
petition bearing CWP No. 30 of 2018 titled Purshotam versus State of H.P.
and others , which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 09.12.2019
(Annexure P8). It is important to take note of the fact that during pendency
of aforesaid writ petition, Sh. Purshotam Ram, who otherwise continued to
perform work of Kardar on the basis of stay granted by this Court vide
order dated 04.01.2018, expired, as a result thereof, an application came to
be filed on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased Purshotam Ram
for impleading them as party respondents. Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court, after having ordered impleadment of the legal representatives of the
deceased Purshotam Ram, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the
legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, including respondent No. 4,
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
4
High Court of H.P.
to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu by way of a representation,
with a further direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate
decision as per custom and tradition prevailing amongst the Hariyans.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the directions contained
in the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, respondent No. 4
along with other legal representatives of deceased Purshotam Ram filed
Review Petition No. 50 of 2023, seeking review of judgment dated
09.12.2019 passed in CWP No. 30 of 2018, however, same also came to be
dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P9).
6. In the meantime, petitioners herein filed an application for
approval of appointment as Kardar of Bhagwan Triyugi Narayan (Annexure
P10 Colly.) on the basis of support of Hariyans. Taking note of aforesaid
application of respondent No. 4, Deputy Commissioner constituted an
inquiry under the Additional District Magistrate with a direction to him to
submit a report after associating all the parties. Additional District
Magistrate submitted his report vide communication dated 08.01.2024
(Annexure P12). Aforesaid authority concluded in his inquiry report that
appointment of Mr. Karam Chand, petitioner No.1 herein, as Kardar of
Devta Triyugi Narayan is not tenable in the eye of law as due process has
not been followed as per customary law, but while passing aforesaid order,
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
5
High Court of H.P.
aforesaid authority also concluded in the report that hereditary claim of Mr.
Krishan Baldev is valid subject to consensus of followers and devotees.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid inquiry report
submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Kullu, petitioners as well
as Pradhan, Devta Triyugi Narayan Temple Committee submitted objections
(Annexure P13).
8. Taking note of objections raised at the behest of the petitioners
as well as Pradhan of the Committee, Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District
Kullu, vide order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure P14) directed the Tehsildar
Bhuntar to convene a general house of Hariyans for obtaining consensus of
the hereditary claim of Sh. Krishan Baldev (respondent No.4), following
which he can be appointed as Kardar of Devta Triyugi Narayan Temple,
Phati Diyar, Kothi.
9. It is pertinent to state that besides making application for
appointment as Kardar by the petitioner-Karam Chand, respondent No. 4
had also filed an application to implement the mandate contained in
judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court. The
Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District Kullu vide order dated 16.01.2024,
taking note of claims and counter claims of the petitioners and respondent
No. 4, though held claim of the petitioner Karam Chand not to be tenable,
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
6
High Court of H.P.
but found claim of the respondent No. 4 to be valid subject to consensus of
Hariyans/followers and accordingly, directed to convene meeting of
Hariyans for obtaining consensus of the hereditary claim of respondent No.
4 (Krishan Baldev).
10. Though in terms of aforesaid order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kullu, District Kullu, meeting was to be convened by
Tehsildar, Bhuntar, to ascertain the wish of Hariyans for appointment of
Kardar, but respondent No. 4 filed review petition under Section 16 of the
Act for review of order dated 16.01.2024, detailed in letter No. 97 dated
16.1.2024, for modifying the order to the extent direction came to be issued
to Additional District Magistrate to convene general house of Hariyans for
obtaining consensus of hereditary claim of the respondent No. 4. In
nutshell, respondent No. 4 attempted to set up a case before the Deputy
Commissioner that since respondent No. 4 has a hereditary claim and on
the basis of Wajib-ul-Arz, he can be appointed as Kardar after demise of his
father Purshotam Ram, there is no requirement, if any, to convene a
meeting for ascertaining the wish of Hariyans.

11. Deputy Commissioner, Kullu vide order dated 26.11.2025
(Annexure P15) allowed the review petition and modified order dated
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
7
High Court of H.P.
16.01.2024. Vide aforesaid order, Deputy Commissioner held respondent
No. 4 entitled to the post of Kardar on the basis of hereditary claim.
12. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners, who at one point
of time had also staked claim against the post of Kardar, have approached
this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as
mentioned hereinabove.
13. Precisely, the case of the petitioners as highlighted in the
petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate,
duly assisted by Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate, is that once father of
the respondent No. 4, Purshotam Ram, stood removed from the post of
Kardar for his having misappropriated the land of Devta Triyugi Narayan
coupled with the fact that till date, aforesaid order of removal has not been
set aside, hereditary claim put forth by respondent No. 4 is not sustainable.
14. Mr. Goel, further argued that otherwise also, bare perusal of
Wajib-ul-Arz nowhere suggests that family member of Kardar shall have
any hereditary claim, rather hereditary claim, if any, is of the Pujari of the
Devta, especially in case of removal. He further argued that after removal of
Purshotam Ram from the post of Kardar, claim set up by the petitioner-
Karam Chand for being appointed as Kardar could not have been ignored
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
8
High Court of H.P.
by the competent authority, especially when such claim of him was
supported by large number of Hariyans.
15. Mr. Goel, further argued that otherwise also, once the Deputy
Commissioner having taken note of claims and counter claims of the
petitioners as well as the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 16.01.2024 had
directed the Tehsildar to convene meeting of Hariyans to ascertain their
wish so that rightful person is appointed as Kardar, he had no authority, if
any, to review its order dated 16.01.2024 in review petition filed under
Section 16 of the Act, which otherwise could not have been attracted in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
16. He further submitted that review petition is not maintainable in
view of judgment dated 24.12.2015, passed by coordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP No. 4824 of 2009 titled as Mandir Committee (Adhoc) Mata
Bhuvaneshwari Jagannathi Temple Bekhli versus Chain Sukh and
others , but even if it is presumed that review could be filed, permission, if
any, to file review ought to have been taken by the Deputy Commissioner
from the Divisional Commissioner prior to his having entertained the review
petition, whereas in the instant case, permission to entertain review
petition came to be accorded by the Divisional Commissioner after disposal
of the review petition.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
9
High Court of H.P.
17. He further submitted that in terms of Section 16 of the Act,
parties ought to have been afforded opportunity of being heard, but
interestingly, in the case at hand, petitioners as well as Pradhan of Temple
Trust never came to be arrayed as party respondents, hence impugned
order having been passed at their back is not sustainable.

18. To the contrary, Mr. Sunil Awasthi, learned counsel
representing respondent No.4 supported the impugned order dated
26.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. He submitted that
once it is well settled that family member of Kardar can set up a hereditary
claim and same is to be decided on the basis of Wajib-ul-Arz, no illegality
can be said to have been committed by the Deputy Commissioner while
modifying/reviewing its earlier order, whereby direction was issued to
convene meeting of Hariyans.
19. He submitted that after the death of Sh.Purshotam Ram,
respondent No. 4 being his legal representative had been performing work
of Kardar as per Wajib-ul-Arz and in the event of grouse, if any, the
petitioners ought to have filed fresh application for removal of respondent
No. 4, but certainly such relief cannot be granted in the instant
proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
10
High Court of H.P.
20. He also attempted to argue that power of review never came to
be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of quasi judicial
authority, rather he modified his administrative order by which he had
directed the Tehsildar to convene meeting of Hariyans.
21. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and
perused material available on record, this Court finds that predecessor-in-
interest of respondent No. 4, namely Purshotam Ram, was Kardar of Devta
Triyugi Narayan for quite long. It is also not in dispute that above named
person was subsequently removed from the post of Kardar by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kullu, on the basis of complaint made by the Hariyans. It is
also not in dispute that order of removal of Purshotam as Kardar has not
been set aside by any competent court of law. Though aforesaid order was
laid challenge before this Court in CWP No. 30 of 2018, but as has been
taken note hereinabove, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court did not
adjudicate the legality of order impugned in those proceedings, rather
relegated the petitioners, i.e. legal representatives of deceased Purshotam
Ram, to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, for deciding their claim with
regard to appointment of Kardar on the basis of Wajib-ul-Arz and custom
prevailing amongst the Hariyans.
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
11
High Court of H.P.
22. Parties are in agreement that as per Wajib-ul-Arz, family
member of Kardar can stake claim to the post of Kardar on hereditary
basis, but there is nothing in the Wajib-ul-Arz to suggest that in case
Kardar is removed on the ground of mistrust, his legal representative can
be given appointment to the post of Kardar on the basis of heredity.

23. Vide judgment dated 09.05.2016 passed by this Court in CWP
No. 3079 of 2015 titled Kanta Devi versus Financial Commissioner
(Appeals) and Others , which came to be pressed into service by Mr. Sunil
Awasthi, Advocate, this Court held that post of Kardar can be claimed on
the basis of heredity, but in the aforesaid judgment, it nowhere came to be
ruled that in case Kardar is removed on ground of mistrust, his legal heirs
can claim post of Kardar on the ground of heredity.
24. Though on the aforesaid proposition of law, no law appears to
have been laid down by any constitutional court including this Court, but
in case titled Raj Kumar versus Prem Singh , 1981 Sim.L.C. 388,
Financial Commissioner, while dealing with question of appointment of
Kardar, has categorically held that according to Wajib-ul-Arz, majority
opinion is to be taken into consideration only when appointment is to be
made after removal of previous Kardar, meaning thereby, though in terms
of Wajib-ul-Arz, post of Kardar can be claimed on hereditary basis, but in
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
12
High Court of H.P.
case Kardar is removed for some reasons, hereditary claim, if any, set up by
legal representatives of removed Kardar can be decided by the majority.
25. In the case at hand, pursuant to directions passed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Petition, matter
ultimately came to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, vide
order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure P14), who on the basis of inquiry report
received from the Additional District Magistrate, Kullu, concluded that
candidature/claim of Sh. Karam Chand i.e. petitioner No.1 herein, is not
valid in eye of law as far as his appointment as Kardar is concerned, but
claim of Mr. Krishan Baldev, respondent No. 4, is valid subject to
consensus of Hariyans/followers. After having arrived at aforesaid
conclusion, Deputy Commissioner directed Tehsildar, Kullu to convene
general house of Hariyans for obtaining consensus of hereditary claim of
Sh. Krishan Baldev, respondent No. 4, following which he can be appointed
as Kardar of Devta Triyugi Narayan Temple.
26. Before aforesaid order could be taken to its logical end,
trespondent No. 4, in whose favour, order was actually passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, filed review petition, seeking review of aforesaid
order inasmuch as direction came to be issued to convene general house of
Hariyans for obtaining consensus. Interestingly, the Deputy Commissioner,
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
13
High Court of H.P.
Kullu, District Kullu reviewed order dated 16.01.2024 and held that there
is no requirement of convening meeting of Hariyans, rather on the basis of
hereditary claim, respondent No. 4 is entitled to be appointed as Kardar.
27. Though Mr. Sunil Awasthi, learned counsel representing the
respondent No. 4 vehemently argued that as per Wajib-ul-Arz, a person can
be appointed as Kardar on the basis of hereditary claim and as such, no
illegality can be said to have been committed by the Deputy Commissioner
while passing order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P15), whereby order dated
16.01.2024 came to be reviewed, but he was unable to dispute that
aforesaid plea raised before Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 30 of
2018 titled as Purshotam Ram versus State of H.P. and others, was not
accepted, rather having taken holistic view of the matter, Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2019 directed the
petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner by way of representation
with further direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider and take
appropriate decision thereon as per custom and tradition prevailing
amongst the Hariyans. However, Deputy Commissioner overlooked
aforesaid part of the directions contained in judgment dated 09.12.2019
passed by Division Bench of this Court. Though, at first instance, taking
note of facts in entirety, Deputy Commissioner, found claim of respondent
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
14
High Court of H.P.
No. 4 to be genuine in terms of Wajib-ul-Arz, but yet vide order dated
16.01.2024 directed the Tehsildar to convene general house of Hariyans for
obtaining consensus of hereditary claim of, respondent No. 4 (Mr. Krishan
Baldev), which was actually the direction of Division Bench of this Court in
civil writ petition detailed herein above. However, for totally unjustifiable
reasons, the Deputy Commissioner, subsequently on the basis of review
petition, proceeded to review order dated 16.01.2024, that too on flimsy
grounds, without affording opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders,
especially Pradhan of the Committee of Devta Triyugi Narayan.
28. Interestingly, in the case at hand, it came to be argued at the
behest of Mr. Sunil Awasthi that order dated 16.01.2024 was not passed by
the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of quasi judicial authority, rather
he on administrative side passed such order and as such, did not commit
any illegality while reviewing order dated 26.11.2025. However, aforesaid
submission of Mr. Awasthi appears to be totally contradictory to the facts
as well as law on the point.
29. Admittedly, order dated 16.01.2024 came to be passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, on representation filed by respondent No. 4
pursuant to directions contained in judgment passed by Division Bench of
this Court as well as on application made by the petitioners for his being
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
15
High Court of H.P.
appointed as Kardar. Needless to say, Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District
Kullu, had actually proceeded to pass order dated 16.01.2024 pursuant to
directions contained in order passed by Division Bench of this Court and as
such, ought not have straightaway ordered for appointment of the
respondent No. 4 as Kardar, rather in that regard, ought to have convened
meeting of Hariyans. Though at first instance, he passed order dated
16.01.2024 strictly in terms of directions issued by Division Bench of this
Court, but subsequently using power of review under Section 16 of the Act,
proceeded to pass order dated 26.11.2025, thereby reviewing order dated
16.01.2024 inasmuch as direction was issued to convene meeting of
Hariyans. In case order dated 16.01.2024 was not passed in the capacity
of quasi judicial authority, there was no occasion, if any, for the Deputy
Commissioner to seek permission from the Divisional Commissioner to
exercise power of review. In the instant case, permission to exercise power
of review came to be obtained after passing of order dated 26.11.2025 in
review petition and as such, impugned order dated 26.11.2025 is otherwise
not sustainable in the eye of law.

30. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that once
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 30 of 2018, having taken note of
submissions made by respondent No. 4 and having taken note of
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
16
High Court of H.P.
submissions made by the legal representatives of deceased Purshotam
including respondent No. 4, had directed the Deputy Commissioner to
decide claim of respondent No. 4 for being appointed as Kardar on the basis
of customs, traditions and Wajib-ul-Arz, the Deputy Commissioner could
not have reviewed its earlier order dated 16.01.2024 by observing that in
terms of Wajib-ul-Arz, no meeting of Hariyans is required to be convened
for appointment of Kardar who can be appointed on the basis of hereditary
claim.
31. Since order passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as
order dated 22.04.2017 (Annexure P5) have attained finality, this Court
finds merit in the petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Impugned
order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P15) is quashed and set aside with a
direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, to ensure that mandate
contained in the judgment inasmuch as convening of meeting of Hariyans
is taken to its logical end expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
32. Once meeting in terms of aforesaid order is convened and
report in that regard is submitted to the Deputy Commissioner by
Tehsildar, Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders taking note
of observations made in the instant judgment as well as Wajib-ul-Arz,
wherein admittedly there is no provision that in the event of removal of
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48512
17
High Court of H.P.
Kardar, his or her legal representative can be appointed on hereditary
basis. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with
pending applications, if any.

October 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 14:52:06 :::CIS