Gangele J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs :

“(i) That, the respondent may be directed not to demolish the property belonging to the petitioner trust.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question, in the interest of justice.

(iii) That, any other relief, which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner may also be granted in the interest of justice.

(iv) That, the cost of this petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. There is a temple named as Shri Ram Thakur Mandir Certain lands of No.249, 250, 251, 252, 266, 267, 290, 291 and 292 total area 19 bigha 19 biswa is attached with the temple. It is recorded as muafi land.

3. In the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No.4714/2012 (Akhil Bhartiya Shatriya Mahasabha v. State of M.P. and others), large number of documents have been filed and after perusal of the documents, this Court vide order of even date recorded a finding in regard to nature of the land, which is attached with the temple :-

“6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted fact that there is a temple named as Shri Ram Thakur Mandir for a quite long time. The land is attached with the temple. It is recorded as muafi aukaf Land. In the revenue record, ownership is mentioned of Aukaf Department. It is clear from the revenue records that the land area 19 bigha 19 biswa is part and parcel of the temple. It was attached with the temple. There is no history provided either by the respondents or the petitioner that who had granted the land to the temple and when the temple was constructed, however, from the khasra entries it is clear that the temple has been from quite a long time. Respondent No.7 has filed khasra entries from samvat 1978-84. In the aforesaid khasra panchshala, the land has been mentioned as Shri Ram Thakur ji Banke and the name of the pujari has also been mentioned. The State itself admitted in the return that the land has been recorded muafi land. In the State time, muafi word was used for the land, which was given by the State for the particular purpose. It had so many purposes.

7. During the State time, the rules named as Kavaad Muafidaran Jujbe Aaraji, Samvat 1969 were in force. Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules defines muafi land, which is as under :-

**dk;nk 8 & eqvkfQ;kr dh vDlke gLc tSy gS %&

1- /kjeknk; ;kuh [kSjkrh

2- ukudkj ;kuh bukeh

3- ckxkr

4- nsoLFkkuh o ihjLFkkuh

5- pkdjkuk **

8. In accordance with the aforesaid rule, the State used to grant the land as muafi land to a particular religious place for the purpose of upkeep of the aforesaid place. The land is recorded as muafi land. The land was attached with the temple.

9. This Court in Idol Ganeshji v. J.M.Anand reported in 1983 JLJ 248 has held as under in regard to legal right of a deity installed in the temple :-

“9. Now building of a temple itself is a religious purpose. When a deity is installed in a temple and is regularly worshiped, it becomes a religious endowment, the deity becomes a juristic person and the manager occupies the same position as a Shebait. The deity is looked upon as a kind of human entity. A Hindu idol has always been held to be a juristic person and it is in this idol that the dedicated property, vests. This juristic personality in the idol is a mere creation of law and has its origin in a desire for doing justice and providing centres for juristic relations. The Privy Council in Pramotha v. Pradyumna (L.R.521-A 245) observed that “it has juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. The juridical person in the idol is not the material image and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated and vivified by the Pran-Pratishtha ceremony. It is not also correct that the Supreme-being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of the dedicated propert