Back
(HIGH COURT)
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Mandir Shri Mahader Ji, Chimak and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No. 160 of 2017, 161 of 2017, 524 of 2017, 3353 of 2019, 18724 of 2019 and 17845 of 2019 (Gwalior);
Decided on 24.1.2020.
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && fjV ;kfpdk dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && nsork dh Ñf"k Hkwfe && dysDVj eafnjksa ds izca/kd ds :Ik esa vfHkfyf[kr && iqtkfj;ksa }kjk vius uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa ukekarfjr fd, tkus ds fy, izR;FkhZ dks funsZ'k fn, tkus dh bZIlk && iqtkfj;ksa dk fgr nsork ds fy, vfgrdj && mUgsa okLrfod lsok;r ;k oknfe= ds :i esa ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrhA flfoy vihy Ø-10866&10867@2019 fu.khZr fnukad 9-11-2019 ¼mPpre U;k-½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && /kkjk 109 rFkk 110 && ukekarj.k dh gdnkjh && lkoZtfud eafnj && eafnj dh Ñf"k Hkwfe && dysDVj eafnj ds izca/kd ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr && iqtkfj;ksa }kjk uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa ukekarfjr fd, tkus ds fy, izR;FkhZ dks funsZ'k fn, tkus dh bZIlk && iqtkfj;ksa dk fgr dsoy iwtk djus rd lhfer gS && og Lo;a dks lkoZtfud eafnj dk tks ekQh vkSdkQ dh laifÙk gS] izca/kd@lsok;r gksus dk nkok ugha dj ldrs && og ukekarj.k ds gdnkj ughaA ¼iSjk 20 ls 23
¼3½ eafnj && iqtkjh dk vf/kdkj && lkoZtfud eafnj && iqtkjh dk O;fäxr eafnj ugha && nsork dh Ñf"k Hkwfe && iqtkjh Lo;a dks lkoZtfud eafnj dk izca/kd ;k lsok;r gksus dk nkok ugha dj ldrs && ,sls eafnj dk izca/kd dsoy dysDVj gS && iqtkjh ukekarj.k dk gdnkj ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% ;kphx.k dks eafnj ds izca/ku ds fo"k; esa dgus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS vkSj mudk lhfer vf/kdkj iwtk vpZuk djus dk gSA og lkoZtfud eafnj ds tks] ekQh vkWdQ laifÙk] izca/kd@lsok;r gksus dk nkok ugha dj ldrsA lkoZtfud eafnj dk izca/kd dysDVj gksrk gS] vkSj dsoy ogha lkoZtfud eafnj dh laifÙk dk izca/k dsoy ogha lkoZtfud eafnj dh laifÙk dk izca/k dj ldrk gSA vr% bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd [kljk ik¡plkyk ds LraHk Øekad 3 ;k 12 esa iqtkfj;ksa dk uke vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 2405 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 20-11-2013 ¼mPp U;k-½] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1277 lu~ 2002 fu.khZr fnukad 12-7-2002 ¼mPp U;k-½ rFkk fjV vihy Ø- 617 lu~ 2004 fu.khZr fnukad 14-6-2016 ¼mPp [kaM U;k;ihB½ flfoy vihy Øekad 5043 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 27-2-2019 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk ¼2019½9 ,l lh lh 495 n`f"V ls vc ekU; fof/k ughaA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21
lkoZtfud eafnj dh laifÙk esa ;kphx.k@iqtkfj;ksa dk dksbZ gd ;k dqN dgus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS] vkSj mudk dsoy iwtk vpZuk djus dk lhfer vf/kdkj gS] blfy, tSlk fd mPpre U;k;ky; us Jh x.kifr nso VsEiy VªLV ¼mi;qZä½ esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd lkoZtfud eafnj ds iqtkfj;ksa dh gSfl;r esa ;kphx.k jktLo vfHkys[k ¼[kljk ik¡plky½ esa viuk ukekarj.k djkus ds gdnkj ugha gSaA blfy,] izR;FkhZx.k us [kljk ik¡plkyk ls iqtkfj;ksa ds uke foyksfir djus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSA 1999 jk fu 392 ¼mPp U;k-½] 1992 jk fu 194 ¼mPpre U;k-½] flfoy vihy Øekad 10866&10867 lu~ 2010 fu.khZRk fnukad 9-11-2019 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1967½2 ,l lh vkj 618] ¼2019½9 ,l lh lh 495 rFkk f}rh; vihy Øekad 885 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 8-1-2019 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 13 ls 19
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of writ petition -- agricultural land belonging to deity -- Collector recorded as manager of temples -- pujaris sought direction to respondent to mutate their names in revenue record -- interest of Pujaris is detrimental to interest of deity -- they cannot be permitted to file petition as de facto Shebait or next friend. Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867/2019 decided on 9.11.2019 (SC) referred to. [Paras 11 & 12
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 109 and 110 -- entitlement of mutation -- public temple -- agricultural land belonging to temple -- Collector recorded as manager of temple -- Pujaris sought direction to respondent to mutate their name in revenue record -- right of Pujaris is limited only to offering Puja -- they cannot claim themeselves to be manager/Shebait of public temple, which is Mafi Auqaf property -- there are not entitled for mutation. [Paras 20 to 23
(3) Temple -- right of Pujari -- public temple -- not private temple of Pujari -- agricultural lands belonging to deity -- Pujaris cannot claim themselves to be manager/Shebait of public temple -- only Collector is manager of such temple -- Pujari is not entitled o mutation.
Held: The petitioners have no right or say in the management of the temple and they have a limited right of offering prayer/puja. They cannot claim themselves to be manager/Shebait of the Public Temple which is a 18 Maufi Auqaf Property. The Collector is the Manager of the Public, and only he can manage the property of the Public Temple. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the names of the Pujaris are not required to be mentioned either in column 3 or column 12 of the Khasra Punchasala. W.P. No. 2405 of 2009 decided on 20.11.2013 (HC), W.P. No. 1277 of 2002 decided on 12.7.2002 (HC) and W.A. No. 617 of 2004 decided on 14.6.2016 (HC-DB) no longer good law in light of C.A. No. 5043 of 2009 decided on
27.2.2019 and (2019)9 SCC 495. [Paras 20 & 21
The petitioner (s)/Pujaris have no right or title or say in the property of the Public Temple, and they have a limited right to offer prayer only, therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust (supra), it is held that the petitioners in the capacity of a Pujari of the Public Temple, are not entitled to get their names mutated in the land record (Khasra Panchsala). Thus, the respondents did not commit any mistake by deleting the names of Pujaris from the Khasra Panchsala. 1999 RN 392 (HC), 1992 RN 194 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of 2010 decided on 9.11.2019 (SC), (1967)2 SCR 618, (2019)9 SCC 495 and S.A. No. 885 of 2018 decided
on 8.1.2019 referred to. [Paras 23 & 13 to 19
ORDER
1. Heard finally. By this common order, WP 160/2017, WP 161/2017, WP 524/2017, WP 3353/2019, WP 18724/2019 and WP 17845/2019 shall be decided.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P. No. 160/2017 shall be taken into consideration.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :
''7.A. That, a direction may kindly be issued against the respondents not to constitute any committee for managing the temples which is contrary to the many direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court;
B. deleted by order dated 27.2.2017;
C. That, press note which was illegally published by the Collector Gwalior Annexure P-3 may also be quashed.
D. Respondent Collector may be directed to implead the name of Pujari in Khasra papers.
E. Any other relief which is just and proper may also be given;
F. That, the order (Annexure P-12) passed by the Collector, Gwalior is illegal and contrary to law, hence same may kindly be quashed.''
4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners claim themselves to be the Pujaris of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji, Mandir Shri Jayashwar Mahadev Ji, and Mandir Shri Ram Janki and Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji, situated in Gwalior. It is an admitted position that all the three above-mentioned temples are public temples and not private temples of the petitioners/Pujaris. All the three temples have agricultural lands which are adjoining to the temples and it is claimed that the Pujaris of these temples are cultivating those agricultural lands without any interruption and complaint. The details of the land owned by the above mentioned temples are given in Khasra Panchsala annexed as Annexure P-7. It is the claim of the Pujaris that their rights to manage the property of the temples have never extinguished and neither the State nor the Collector has any right to interfere in the management of the land nor the name of the Collector can be recorded as Manager of the Temple Property. It is further claimed that the Pujaris of the Public Temple are juristic persons, are entitled to hold the lands belonging to the Public Temple in their own personal names. It is further pleaded that this Court in the case of Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 20.11.2013 passed in W.P. No. 2405/2009 (Indore Bench), which was affirmed by Division Bench in W.A. No. 617/2004 by order dated 14th day of June 2016, order passed in the case of Mandir Shri Murli Manohar Radhakrishan v. State of M.P. and others by order dated 12.7.2002 passed in W.P. No. 1277 of 2002 (Gwalior Bench) has held that although the properties of the Public Temple are more secured if they are managed by the Collector, but at the same time, the Collector cannot manage the property properly, therefore, in order to protect the interest of the Temples and also to protect the interest of the Pujaris who are entitled to get the benefits of the scheme, which are being introduced by the Govt. for the benefits of the agriculturists, the names of the Pujaris should remain recorded in revenue records. Thus, it is claimed that the names of the Pujaris from the Khasra Panchsala cannot be deleted. Thus, the petition has been filed for the above mentioned relief(s). The Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao, reported in 1999 R.N. 392.
5. The State has filed its return and has stated that the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Janaki Mandir, Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others by order dated 27.2.2019 passed in C.A. No. 5043 of 2009 has held that the Pujaris have no right to manage the property of a Public Temple. Further, it is submitted that by circular dated 21.3.1994, it was directed that the name of the Collector, be mentioned as Manager, and the names of the Pujaris be deleted from the revenue records.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
