Temple properties are managed according to historical procedures, and claims to manage them must be substantiated by legal documentation; the office of Mohatmim is not hereditary.

Headnote:(A) Ailan No. 13 dated 3 Asooj 1964 Bikrami - Management of temple properties - The petitioner, claiming to be the Mahant of a temple, challenged the District Magistrate's order transferring management to a trust. The court found no legal basis for the petitioner's claim to manage the temple or perform puja. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 12)

(B) Temple property management - The office of Mohatmim/Manager is not hereditary; succession must be recorded. The court emphasized that without proper documentation, claims to manage temple properties are invalid. (Paras 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed the right to perform puja in a temple, but conceded he was not interested in managing the property. The respondents argued that the temple's management is governed by historical procedures and that the petitioner is not recorded as a manager.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the management of the temple and its properties would be taken over by the Deputy Commissioner, with arrangements for puja to be made by a committee.

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim to perform puja and the management of temple properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the temple property vests in the Deity, and claims to manage it must be substantiated by legal documentation.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for management by the Deputy Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev J

1. The petitioner claims to be the Mahant of Shree Bajrang Dev Dharam Dass Ji Mandir, Sathu Barbar Shah (temple property) and has filed this petition to throw challenge to the communication of the District Magistrate, Srinagar bearing No.DMS/RD-5245-11/Mig/1169-73 dated 22.12.2017, whereby the District Magistrate has, inter alia, withdrawn the order allowing Dr. Jai Ram Dass to perform puja in the temple in question and entrusted the daily affairs of the temple to Baba Dharam Dass Ram Jevan Dass Trust. The petitioner claims that the pujari of the temple Mahant Jai Ram Dass has appointed him as Mohatamim of the temple property by virtue of a declaration executed on 01.12.2015. The petitioner, therefore, stakes claim over the right to perform puja and other religious rituals in the temple.

2. Mr. Qureshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, conceded that the petitioner is not entitled to nor is he interested to manage the temple property. The petitioner has, thus, restricted his petition only to his right to perform puja in the temple.

3. The writ petition is opposed by the official respondents. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9, it is submitted that appointment of Mahant in the Hindu temples in Jammu & Kashmir is governed by the procedure enumerated in Ailan No.13 dated 3 Asooj 1964 Bikrami notified during Maharaja times. As per the report of the Tehsildar, Srinagar submitted by him vide his letter No.TSS/OQ/2283/22 dated 30.09.2022, the land falling in khasra No.48 measuring 19 marlas under survey No.2191 is recorded in the name of temple Ba-Ahitmam Shri Kankar Dass Chella Pandit Shatrugan Dass Pujaari. The land exclusively belongs to the temple and has been recorded as such. It is submitted that on spot the Tehsildar has found three buildings erected on the premises which are occupied by the security forces and some by the purported office bearers of the Temple. The petitioner, too, was found putting up in one of the rooms. It is, thus, stand of the respondents that as per the revenue record, the petitioner or for that matter Baba Jai Ram Dass are not recorded Mohatmim/Manager of the temple and its property.

4. Respondent No.12 claiming to be the sole trustee of the property has also jumped in the fray and has staked his claim on the ground that he is trustee of Shree Baba Dharam Dass Ram Jiwan Dass Trust and, therefore, entitled to manage its affairs.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. Indisputably, the temple property in question vests in the Deity and, therefore, none of the parties to this petition or anybody else can stake claim over it. There is nothing on record on the basis of which, this Court can come to a conclusion as to how this property came to be dedicated to the temple. In the absence of any specific record, it has to be presumed that the Maharaja of the time built temples and dedicated landed properties to it so that the income earned out of such properties is used for the management and betterment of the temples and charitable purposes.Ailan No.13 dated 3 Asooj Bikrami throw some light on how the Mohatmim/Managers of such properties were appointed by the Maharajas.

7. Ordinarily, the temple properties are required to be managed as per the stipulation, if any, contained in the trust deed or dedication made for creating such temple or endowment. The office of Mohtmim/Manager is not a hereditary office and, therefore, the successor of a Mohatmim/Manager of a temple and its properties cannot, as a matter of right, succeed to be the next manager of the properties of the temple.

8. In the instant case, the last recorded Mohatmim of the temple property is Kankar Dass Chella Pandit Shatrugan Dass Pujari. Thereafter neither any succession is recorded in the revenue record nor is there any person legitimately recorded to succeed Kankar Dass. There has been dispute between various sects of Sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document