Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021, SLP (Civil) No. 33675 of 2017
Decided On : 06-09-2021
(A) Land Laws – Title – Right to alienate properties of temple – Pujari is not a tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of Maufi lands but holds such land on behalf of Aukaf Department for the purpose of management – Pujari is only a grantee to manage property of deity and such grant can be reassumed if Pujari fails to do task assigned to him to offer prayers and manage land – He cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami – Pujari does not have any right in land and his status is only that of a manager – Rights of Pujari do not stand on same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including right to sell or mortgage. [M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Sections 108, 114 and 258 – Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Sections 57, 158 and 159] (Para 20)
(B) Land Laws – Title – Deletion of name of Pujari from revenue record – In ownership column, name of deity alone is required to be mentioned, as deity being a juristic person is owner of land – Occupation of land is also by deity which is carried out by servant or managers on behalf of deity – Name of manager or that of priest is not required to be mentioned in column of occupier as well – Name of Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in remark’s column – However, name of Collector as manager cannot be recorded in respect of property vested in deity as Collector cannot be a manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with State – Temple in a house or which is not open to public cannot be treated to be a public temple – It will be a question in each case whether it is a public temple or a private temple which can be decided in appropriate proceedings. [M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Sections 108, 114 and 258 – Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Sections 57, 158 and 159] (Paras 27, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Order dated 14.06.2016 passed in an intra-court appeal by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is the subject matter of challenge herein at the instance of State of Madhya Pradesh. Single Bench allowed the writ petition filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973. Such society has 251 members in the Districts of Dhar, Indore, Ratlam, Shajapur, Ujjain, Jhabua etc. The challenge in the writ petition was to quash the Circulars dated 21.03.1994 and 07.06.2008 whereby the names of Pujari were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record. Question which is required to be decided is whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and as a consequence under the Code.
Findings of Court:
No rule has been brought to the notice that the name of the Manager has to be recorded in the land records. In the absence of any prohibition either in the statute or in the rules, the executive instruction can be issued to supplement the statute and the rules framed thereunder. Such instructions do not contravene any of the provisions of the Code or the rules. Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of authority vested in the State Government.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The order dated 14.06.2016 passed in an intra-court appeal by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is the subject matter of challenge herein at the instance of State of Madhya Pradesh. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973. Such society has 251 members in the Districts of Dhar, Indore, Ratlam, Shajapur, Ujjain, Jhabua etc.
2. The challenge in the writ petition was to quash the circulars dated 21.03.1994 and 07.06.2008 whereby the names of Pujari were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record. The said writ petition was allowed on 20.11.2013 relying upon the judgments of the High Court in Ghanshyamdas vs. State of M.P. 1995 R.N. 235 and Kashi Bhatti through LRs. vs. State of M.P. 2009 R.N. 179. The learned Single Bench held that the circulars dated 12.11.1992 and 21.03.1994 were already quashed by the High Court in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively and therefore there was no justification on the part of the State Government to issue circular dated 07.06.2008 directing the Revenue Commissioner to follow the circular dated 21.03.1994. Learned Single Bench held as under:
3. In an intra-court appeal against the aforesaid findings, the High Court referred to a judgment of Division Bench in State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyamdas, 1999 R.N. 25, an order passed against the order in writ petition reported as Ghanshyamdas. The Court inter-alia held that Pujaris had no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have rights only with respect to either cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. The High Court further held that if the temple was managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down from time to time, his name was required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of the deity. The Court held as under:
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Before this Court, the argument of Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the preparation of revenue records including as to what entry should be incorporated in such record has been pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
