SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.956 OF 2010
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 34 and 38 – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Suit was filed by Deity through Pujaris claiming ownership to lands received from Manager of landlord – Pujaris did not lay any claim to ownership of lands in them – Temple was constructed by forefather of Pujaris who continued to perform Puja and enjoy usufructs of lands also – They were suddenly made aware of correction made in land records in year 1979-80 when collector published notice for auction settlement of lands leading to institution of suit – There is no material on record with regard to any alleged mismanagement of temple which required it to be taken over by Collector – On evidence on record, respondents plaintiffs have been held to be Maurusi Krishaks of lands – It is not the case of appellant that plaintiff Temple stands recorded in list of public temples prepared in 2013 for District of Ujjain – Lands have not been taken on lease by Deity from Government but from erstwhile owner – Name of Deity finds place in revenue entries for years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73 – Same is position with regard to revenue entries for 1973 to 1977 – There is concurrent finding by First Appellate Court and High Court that procedure not having been followed, correction made in revenue records and on basis of which Temple was claimed to be a public temple and Collector as Manager thereof was unsustainable – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Defendants are in appeal consequent to dismissal of their second appeal. Respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal was reversed in first appeal and suit was decreed.
Findings of Court:
In present case name of the Deity finds place in revenue entries for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73. Same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for 1973 to 1977. It is not the case of the appellants that correction in the revenue entries in 1979-80 was made in compliance with provisions of Section 115 of Code.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of their second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed.
2. Shri Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that respondent no.1 was a public Temple. The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’ (Manager) which was done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”. Therefore, they had no right to claim ownership of the Temple lands, much less have their names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against interference. The Temple being situated on government land belonging to the Aukaf Department was a “Devsthani Muafi”. The Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands. Reliance was placed on an order dated 22.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2009 Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., and Shri Ram Mandi Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2019 (4) SCALE 302.
3. Conversely Shri Randhir Singh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Pujaris never claimed any ownership rights in themselves to the lands. The lands belonged to the Deity gifted by Syed Mohammed Ali, Manager of the landlord Hakim. The Deity was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands since very long. Puja was being done by the Pujaris on basis of the income of the Temple. The unilateral correction in the land revenue entries as late as 1979-80, by recording the collector as ‘Manager’ was in complete violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) as concurrently held by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. Reliance was placed on an order dated 06.10.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 8554 of 2015 “State Government of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.”.
4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the materials relied upon by the counsel for the parties as also the precedents cited.
5. The suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming ownership to the lands received from Syed Mohammad Ali, Manager of the landlord Hakim situated in Village Kharsod Kalan, District Ujjain. The Pujaris did not lay any claim to ownership of the lands in them. The Temple was constructed by the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and enjoy the usufructs of the lands also. They were suddenly made aware of the correction made in column 3 of the land records in the year 1979-80 when the collector published notice for auction settlement of the lands, leading to the institution of the suit. There is no material on record with regard to any alleged mismanagement of the temple which required it to be taken over by the Collector. On the evidence on record, the respondents plaintiffs have been held to be Maurusi Krishaks of the lands. Column 3 records their occupation, while the ownership stands in the name of the Deity.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that the plaintiff Temple stands recorded in the list of public temples prepared in 2013 for the District of Ujjain as noticed in Shri Ram Mandir Indore (supra). The lands have not been taken on lease by the Deity from the Government but from the erstwhile owner. Ramesh Das (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the ownership of the lands for a claim of a private temple was not being made in the name of the Deity but those physically in possession of the lands.
7. In the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the revenue entries for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73. The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for 1973 to 1977. It is not the case of the appellants that the correction in the revenue entries in 1979-80 was m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.