The limited rights of a Mohtmim or Shehbit of an idol inside a temple and the need for proper management of temple lands and income.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.:- The present petitioner becomes aggrieved from the concurrently made decisions respectively, passed on 29.09.2015 (Annexure P-18) and, on 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-20), by the learned DDPO, Patiala, and, by the learned Commissioner concerned, wherebys his espoused declaratory claim for his becoming declared owner in possession of the suit lands, rather became declined. Resultantly, through instituting the instant writ petition the petitioner has brought challenge to the annexures (supra).

2. Admittedly, the suit lands were donated by one Santa Singh, Ganda Ram, and, Shri Rulia to Shri Satya Narayan Mandir, on 15.06.1954. Admittedly a mutation became also attested whereby right, title and interest over the disputed lands became conferred, upon Mandir Shri Satya Narayan. Even in the consolidation operations which were conducted, in the village mohal concerned, in the year 1959-60, thus the disputed lands became reserved for Mandir Shri Satya Narayan, and, thereafters corresponding entries were made in the jamabandi for the year 1961-62. A perusal of the jamabandis respectively relating to the years 1967-68 to 2001-02, reveal that in the column of ownership the name of Nagar Panchayat exists, but in the column of cultivation the temple (supra), is existing, but it also appears that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner one Des Raj was cultivating the suit lands, as Mohtmim of the temple (supra). Therefore, it appears that all the interests of the minor deity inside the temple (supra), became taken care of by Des Raj, but as Mohtmim thereofs. In the said capacity, the said Des Raj also proceeded to offer prayers to the minor deity installed inside the temple (supra), but as its Shehbit. Moreover, it also appears that the said Des Raj proceeded to also on behalf of the temple (supra), thus proceeded to make cultivations of the suit lands.

3. Through a Will made by the said Des Raj in favour of the present petitioner, he appointed him as the Mohtmim of the temple, besides also through a Will executed by the present petitioner, he proceeded to appoint his son as Mohtmim of the temple (supra).

4. Be that as it may, the suit claim became raised on the ground, that through his predecessor-in-interest, the present petitioner has been making independent cultivation of the suit lands prior to 1950, and, thereby he becomes entitled to become bestowed with the beneficent grace of the apposite savings clause to the definition of Shamlat Deh, as carried in Section 2(g) of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The said savings clause is extracted hereinafter.

“Section 2 (g)

(viii) was Shamilat deh was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-shares not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950, or”

5. However, at the outset the said claim is completely mis-founded and, is to be rejected, as there is no firm documentary evidence existing on record, to succor the said claim, especially when there is no entry in the revenue records prior to 1950, whereins, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner is declared rather to be holding independent cultivating possession over the suit lands, thus therebys the above made claim becomes rendered bereft of any vigor.

6. Since there is no contest with respect to the validity of the donation of the suit lands, becoming made qua the temple (supra), by the erstwhile owners, and, nor to the subsequent theretos attestation of mutation being made in favour of the temple, besides nor also to the thereafters made reservation of the suit lands, rather in the consolidation scheme, thus for the benefit of the temple (supra), but for the common users thereof by the entire village proprietary body concerned. Preeminently also there is no well laid challenge to the finalized consolidation scheme, thus at the instance of the present petitioners. The above