Removed Temple Kardar’s Son Can’t Claim Post Solely By Heredity, Himachal Pradesh HC Orders Hariyan Meeting Before Fresh Decision

Purshotam Ram, father of respondent No. 4, had served as Kardar of Devta Triyugi Narayan but was removed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22 April 2017; that removal order was not set aside.

In earlier proceedings, the Division Bench of the High Court directed Purshotam Ram’s legal representatives to approach the Deputy Commissioner, who was to decide their claim in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Hariyans.

On 16 January 2024, the Deputy Commissioner found respondent No. 4’s hereditary claim valid subject to consensus of the Hariyans and directed that a meeting be convened.

On respondent No. 4’s review petition under Section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the Deputy Commissioner reversed that direction on 26 November 2025 and held respondent No. 4 entitled to the post on hereditary grounds.

Karam Chand and others challenged the review order, including on the grounds that the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to review it and had acted without hearing affected stakeholders.

Section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act was invoked as the basis for the Deputy Commissioner’s review; the Court held that the impugned review was unsustainable in the circumstances, including because permission to exercise review power was obtained only after the review order had been passed.

The Court considered the Wajib-ul-Arz and local custom governing appointment of a Kardar: while a hereditary claim may be made, the Wajib-ul-Arz contained no provision entitling the legal representative of a removed Kardar to automatic hereditary appointment.

In Raj Kumar v. Prem Singh, 1981 Sim. L.C. 388, the Financial Commissioner had held that majority opinion is relevant when a successor is to be appointed after a Kardar’s removal.

The prior Division Bench judgment in Purshotam Ram v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 30 of 2018, dated 9 December 2019, required the Deputy Commissioner to decide the claim according to the customs and traditions prevailing among the Hariyans.

The Deputy Commissioner’s 16 January 2024 order had directed a meeting to ascertain the Hariyans’ consensus, consistent with the prior Division Bench mandate.

The later review order removed that requirement and granted respondent No. 4 the post solely on hereditary grounds, despite the absence of a Wajib-ul-Arz provision allowing the legal representative of a removed Kardar to succeed automatically.

The Court further found that the Deputy Commissioner had reviewed the order without hearing all stakeholders and that the Divisional Commissioner’s permission to exercise review power was obtained only after the review order had been made.

Accordingly, the review order could not stand.

It directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that the meeting of the Hariyans was convened expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

After receiving the Tehsildar’s report, the Deputy Commissioner must pass an appropriate order considering the judgment and the Wajib-ul-Arz; the Court did not itself appoint either claimant as Kardar.