1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.9.10 passed by II ADJ, (Fast Track), Jaora Distt. Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/10, whereby the judgment dated 28.4.10 passed by Civil judge, Class-I Jaora in Civil Suit No. 85-A/06, whereby the suit filed by appellants for declaration was dismissed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed.

2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit?

ii. Whether the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration settled position of law that the name of Pujari cannot be deleted in land records by an executive instruction?

3. Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit on 6.4.06 for declaration alleging that Shri Ram Mandir is situated at Piploda. It was alleged that temple is owned by appellants Nos. 1 & 2. It was alleged that previously the temple was looked after by Guru Mohandasji and after his death appellant No. 2 & 3 being disciple are looking after the temple. It was alleged that earlier Guru Balakdasji filed a suit relating to the temple in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaora on 18.7.79, as the land which was owned by the temple was being auctioned by Tehsildar, Jaora in compliance of circular issued by Revenue Commissioner, Ujjain. It was alleged that the suit filed by Guru Balakdasji was numbered as Civil Suit No. 45-A/82 and was decided against the State/respondents on 23.2.89. It was alleged that previously in the land record the name of Guru Balakdasji was recorded as Pujari of the temple. It was alleged that the land which is owned by the appellant temple is measuring 12.080 hectare. Further case of appellants was that against the judgment dated 23.2.89 an appeal was filed by the respondents which was numbered as 32A/92 and was dismissed on 28.2.95. It was alleged that no further appeal was filed by the respondents, thus the judgment passed on 28.2.95 in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/92 attained finality. Further case of appellants was that respondents has removed the name of appellants from the revenue record as Pujari of the appellant temple. It was alleged that repeated applications were submitted, but none of them were taken into consideration, therefore, application was filed which was numbered as 45A-82/2000, wherein it was prayed that respondents be punished for non-compliance of the judgment passed in favour of appellants. Execution filed by the appellants was dismissed on 31.01.05 on the ground that in the earlier suit it was only auction which was stayed and since no relief was granted for not deleting the name of appellants, therefore, execution petition cannot be entertained. Further case of appellant, was that against the order dated 31.1.05 passed by Executing Court an appeal was filed which was numbered as 12-A/06 and was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 28.6.06 holding that the appeal is not maintainable. In the suit it was prayed that it be declared that the auction of respondent, in deleting the name of appellants without giving any notice is illegal and incorrect. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to enter the name of appellant as Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir, Piploda in the revenue record.

4. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein filing of earlier suit was not disputed. It was alleged that the name of Collector as Manager is recorded on the temple and the land. It was alleged that earlier also name of appellants was also recorded as Pujari, therefore, contention of the appellants that the name of appellants has been removed is not correct. It was alleged that the land in dispute is owned by the appellant temple. It was alleged that since the maintenance of all the public temples is under the superintending control of Collector, therefore, the name of Collector was recorded as Manager. I