JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by District Collector, Kangra, H.P. at Annexure P-8 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Mohatmin and Tehsildar Dharamshala has been appointed as the Manager of the Temple. may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. ii. That the be Petitioner may kindly permitted/allowed to maintain the day to day affairs of the Mandir as Mohatmin and the land of the temple, in the interest of justice. iii. That the respondents may very kindly be restrained from interfering in the functioning of the temple and the land of the temple in any manner.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), in terms whereof, he was removed from the Office of Mohatmin and Tehsildar Dharamshala, was appointed as the Manager of the Temple in issue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of the respondents-Authorities is per se arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law for the reason that the respondents have no authority in law to remove the petitioner from the Office of Mohatmin. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1984 Act’) and submitted that in terms of Section 1(3) thereof, the provisions of this Act apply to all Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, mentioned in Schedule 1 of this Act. He thereafter, drew the attention of the Court to Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act and submitted that the temple in issue i.e. Mandi Baba Sidh Gauria, Village Sidbwari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District, Kangra, is not included in the Schedule of the said Act. He submitted that as this Temple does not find mention in the Schedule, obviously, the provisions of the 1984 Act are not applicable to this Institution and this extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the Authority while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he submitted that as the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the petition be allowed by quashing the same. 4. Accordingly, he submitted that as the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the petition be allowed by quashing the same. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has taken the Court to the reply filed by the State and submitted that the Authorities have taken action in the present case in light of the contents of Annexure R-1, appended with the reply of the State, which is Communication dated 20.09.2022, addressed by Chief Commissioner (Temple)-cum-Secretary (LAC) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to the Commissioner (Temple)-cum-Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra. He also referred to the other documents appended with the reply and submitted that in the present case, as a complaint was received by the Authority that the property of the Temple was being misappropriated by the present petitioner, it is in this backdrop that necessary action was taken by the Authority. Learned Deputy Advocate General also referred to the judgment of this Court, in RSA No. 103 of 1991, titled Leela Dutt Vs. Devi Dayal and submitted that the action was taken by the Authorities in light of the law declared by this Court in the said judgment. Accordingly, he argued that as there is no infirmity in the order under challenge, the present petition being devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the documents appended therewith. 6. The moot issue involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the order passed by the Authority, which is under challenge, is without jurisdiction or not. 7. The order under challenge (Annexure P-8), dated 04.02.2025, demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that in terms of the report received from Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dharamshala, it was found that certain works were being carried out by the Mohatmin of Mandir Baba Sidh Gauria, Village Sidhbari, Tehsil Dharamshala, without any permission. 7. The order under challenge (Annexure P-8), dated 04.02.2025, demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that in terms of the report received from Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dharamshala, it was found that certain works were being carried out by the Mohatmin of Mandir Baba Sidh Gauria, Village Sidhbari, Tehsil Dharamshala, without any permission. As the permission of the Authority, i.e. District Collector, Kangra, was necessary for the purpose of carrying out this construction activity and as a complaint stood received of encroachment by the Mohatmin over the land of the Temple by way of unauthorized construction, therefore, after due inquiry, as the said allegations were found to be correct and as there were recommendations by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dharamshala and also the Tehsildar that Bishangiri, Chela Shiv Giri, be removed from the Office of Mohatmin, the District Collector, Kangra, keeping all the above in view, orders the removal of Bishangiri, Chela Shiv Giri, Sidhbari, Tehsil Dharamshala, from the office of Mohatmin, by further appointing Tehsildar, Dharamshala as Manager of the property in issue. 8. A specific query was put by this Court to the learned Deputy Advocate General that under which particular Statute, said power was exercised by the Collector, Dharamshala, because obviously, as the Temple in issue does not find mention in the Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act, the provisions of the 1984 Act were not applicable to the said Temple. Learned Deputy Advocate General referred to Annexure R-1, appended with the reply of the State as well as the judgment passed by this Court in RSA No. 103 of 1991 titled Leela Dutt Vs. Devi Dayal to justify the act of the Authority. 9. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the Temple in issue is not included in Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act, the provisions of the 1984 Act are not applicable upon the said Temple. That being the case, the Authorities which are prescribed under the 1984 Act, cannot exercise any power on this particular Temple or its Mohatmin, as stand conferred upon them by the 1984 Act. In this backdrop, the Temple has to be treated as a property and if any individual was or is aggrieved by the acts of the present petitioner, then the course open for the said individual was is to have approached the Civil Court. In this backdrop, the Temple has to be treated as a property and if any individual was or is aggrieved by the acts of the present petitioner, then the course open for the said individual was is to have approached the Civil Court. This Court is making this observation for the reason that in the present case also, the Court stands informed that complaint against the present petitioner was filed by his nephew (sister’s son). 10. As far as Annexure R-1 appended with the reply is concerned, a perusal thereof demonstrates that in terms of said Communication, which was regarding the appointment of Mohatmin in Mukutnath, Mandir, Sansar, Tehsil, Baijnath, the Chief Commissioner, Temple intimated the Commissioner Temple-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra that as per the practice and convention, Mohatmin of a Temple is appointed by the Collector of District on the basis of provisions contained in Record of Rights prepared at the time of settlement and also on the basis of ‘riwaj’ detailed in Wajib-ul-Arj and since the Temple concerned is not a Scheduled Temple under the 1984 Act, the Act does not apply to the said Temple. It is further mentioned in the Communication that Deputy Commissioner, being Collector of the District, should keep in view various orders passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, such as CWP No. 624 of 2005 titled Kushal Chand Vs. Suresh Kumari and others and CWP No. 624 of 2005 etc. If there is nothing in Wajib-ul-Arj with regard to more than one Mohatmin, then the Collector should decide the matter after hearing the interested parties and studying the practices with regard to Mohatmin in Kangra District. 11. Before making any observation with regard to this Communication, first and foremost this Court would like to observe that herein it was not a case of appointment of Mohatmin which was decided by Commissioner Temple-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Kangra vide impugned order. Herein, acting upon certain complaints filed against the present petitioner and based on the inquiries conducted by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned and Tehsildar concerned, the petitioner was removed from the Office of Mohatmin. Herein, acting upon certain complaints filed against the present petitioner and based on the inquiries conducted by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned and Tehsildar concerned, the petitioner was removed from the Office of Mohatmin. This Court again reiterates that in the absence of any authority or jurisdiction conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner to deal with the affairs of the Temple in issue, the Deputy Commissioner could not confer upon itself any power to deal with the affairs of the religious institution, as has been done in the present case. Even Communication issued by Chief Commissioner (Temple)-cum-Secretary, like Annexure R-1, cannot confer upon Deputy Commissioner the powers which otherwise are not conferred upon the said Authority statutorily. The reliance upon the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 103 of 1991, titled Leela Dutt Vs. Devi Dayal , which is wrongly mentioned as writ petition in the Communication (Annexure R- 1), also does not come to the rescue of the respondents because perusal of the said judgment demonstrates that therein, this Court while deciding a Regular Second Appeal, in order to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties formulated a modus to put an end to the dispute between them and this modus, obviously, was in personam to the parties and the same cannot be treated as a precedent or a judgment in rem. More so, in light of the fact that in the absence of any authority and jurisdiction conferred upon an Authority to deal with the affairs of said religious institution, the Authority could not have had interfered with the matters thereof. 12. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by District Collector, Kangra, is without jurisdiction, the same is quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed in above-terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.