Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Arun Kumar Sharma, J.
Sheikh Aun Ali & others v. State of M.P. & others
First Appeal No. 602 of 2016 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2016 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2015;
Decided on 22.6.2023
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 27 && vfrfjDr lk{; ds fy, vkosnu && dc eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;g lkfcr djus ds fy, fd guqeku eafnj izkphu eafnj gS] Nk;kfp= ,oa o"kZ 2012 dk [kljk vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkuk pkgk x;k && og igys izLrqr fd, tk ldrs Fks D;ksafd dqN Nk;kfp= fopkj.k ds nkSjku izLrqr fd, x, Fks && ijarq lE;d~ rRijrk ugha cjrh xbZ && Nk;kfp=ksa ls Hkh eafnj izkphu gksus dk rF; lkfcr ugha gksrk && [kljk esa Hkwfe NksVk ?kkl ¼pkjkxkg] chM+ ;k ?kkl½ ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr && bl izfof"V dh oSèkrk nwf"kr ugha dh tk ldrh && vkosnu [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 13
¼2½ Òw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1881 ¼lh-ih-½ && èkkjk 4 ¼11½ && yacjnkj && ls vfHkiszr && o"kZ 2012 ds [kljs esa Hkwfe lsokjke yacjnkj ds uke vfHkfyf[kr && yacjnkj egy dk lkaifÙkd izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, ljdkj dk izfrfuf/k Fkk && lu~ 1881 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ,slh Hkwfe yacjnkj dh O;fDrxr laifÙk ugha ekuh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 13
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 17] ijarqd && izdj.k dh vafre lquokbZ ds izØe ij la'kks/ku ds fy, vkosnu && LohdkjksfDr okil ysrs gq, iw.kZr% fHkUu u;k ekeyk cukuk pkgk && iw.kZr% uohu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij uohu fopkj.k eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vkosnu [kkfjtA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 680] ¼2006½ 6 ,l lh lh 498] ¼1998½ 1 ,l lh lh 278] ¼2000½ 1 ,l lh lh 712 rFkk ¼2012½ 9 ,l lh lh 349 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 26 fu- 9 && dfe'uj dh fu;qfDr && eafnj izkphu lkfcr djus ds fy, && dc eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && dfe'uj bl iz'u dk fofu'p;u ugha dj ldrk fd eafnj izkphu gS ;k ugha && i{kdkjksa ds e/; lhekvksa dk fookn ugha && vkosnu [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 14
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 11 && okn pyus ;ksX; gksuk && igys gh fofuf'pr rFkk okn pyus ;ksX; ik;k x;k && og vkns'k vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vafre gks x;k && izR;FkhZx.k dk ladFku fd okn e-iz- lkoZtfud LFkku ¼/kkfeZd Hkou ,oa xfrfof/k;ksa dk fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu oftZr gS && nwljh vksj] izR;FkhZ Ø- 5-1 ls 5-4 us vfHkokd~ fd;k fd mi;qZDr vf/kfu;e ykxw ugha gksrk && vr,o] mi;qZDr iz'uksa dk vafre :i ls fofu'p;u fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 78 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15
¼6½ lkoZtfud LFkku ¼/kkfeZd Hkou ,oa xfrfof/k;ksa dk fofu;eu½ vfèkfu;e] 2001 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 10 && e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 && /kkjk 237 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-7 fu- 11 && okn pyus ;ksX; gksuk && igys gh fofuf'pr rFkk okn pyus ;ksX; ik;k x;k && og vkns'k vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vafre gks x;k && izR;FkhZx.k dk ladFku fd okn vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu oftZr gS && nwljh vksj] izR;FkhZ Ø- 5-1 ls 5-4 us vfHkokd~ fd;k fd mi;qZDr vf/kfu;e ykxw ugha gksrk && okn Hkwfe NksVk ?kkl Hkwfe ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr && vr,o] mi;qZDr iz'uksa dk vafre :i ls fofu'p;u fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 78 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 80 ¼1½ rFkk 80 ¼2½ && lwpuk dk vHkko && izHkko && okn /kkjk 80 ¼2½ ds v/khu NwV ds lkFk izLrqr && oknhx.k vR;ko';d izd`fr dk vLFkk;h O;kns'k pkgrs Fks && lekt ds nks leqnk;ksa ds eè; fookn && fdlh Hkh le; 'kkafr Hkax dk dkj.k cu ldrk gS && lwpuk dk vHkko okn ds fy, ?kkrd ugha && okn pyus ;ksX;A ¼iSjk 16
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 101 rFkk 102 && lcwr dk Hkkj && nkok fd okn Hkwfe ij fLFkr guqeku eafnj izkphu eafnj gS && izfroknhx.k }kjk ;g nkok ,oa vfHkokd~ fd;k x;k && lcwr dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ijA ¼iSjk 17
¼9½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 117 && [kljk izfof"V && mi/kkj.kk && [kljk ds LraHk 12 esa iVokjh }kjk ßctjaxcyh ds LFkkuß dh vçkfèkÑr izfof"V dh xbZ && ekSf[kd ;k vU; lk{; ls lkfcr ugha fd eafnj izkphu gS && ,slh izfof"V lgh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk mRiUu ugha gksrhA 1991 jk fu 61 ¼mPp U;k-½] 1993 jk fu 57 ¼mPp U;k-½] 1996 jk fu 337 ¼mPp U;k-½ rFkk 1993 jk fu 25 ¼mPp U;k-½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19
¼10½ dCtk && oS/krk && okn Hkwfe NksVk ?kkl ¼pkjkxkg] ?kkl] chM+ ;k pkjs½ ds :i esa ljdkjh Hkwfe vfHkfyf[kr && izfroknhx.k Øekad 5-1 ls 5-4 dk nkok fd ogk¡ guqeku dk izkphu eafnj gS && og iwtk vpZuk djrs vk jgs gSa && ;g lkfcr ugha && eafnj fuekZ.k ds fo"k; esa fdlh l{ke izkfèkdkjh dh dksbZ vuqefr ugha && izfroknhx.k dks dCts dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj ughaA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21
¼11½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 237 && okn Hkwfe ljdkjh Hkwfe ¼pkjkxkg] ?kkl] chM+ ;k pkjs½ ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr && dysDVj ds vuqKk ds fcuk fdlh vU; iz;kstu ds fy, O;iofrZr ugha dh tk ldrh && izfroknhx.k okn Hkwfe dk vf/kHkksx /kkfeZd iz;kstu ds fy, dj jgs gSa && /kkfeZd iz;kstu /kkjk 237 ls vkPNkfnr ughaA ¼iSjk 22 ls 24
¼12½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 1 fu- 8 && ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn && oknhx.k dk vfHkopu fd okn Hkwfe NksVk ?kkl ¼pkjkxkg] ?kkl] chM+½ ds :i esa ljdkjh Hkwfe vfHkfyf[kr && mlds pkjksa vksj njxkg&,&gdheh dh Hkwfe gS && okn Hkwfe ij fdlh eafnj dk fuekZ.k jksdk tk, && izfroknhx.k dk nkok fd ogk¡ guqeku dk izkphu eafnj gS && os iwtk vpZuk djrs vk jgs gSa && izfroknhx.k us Lohdkj fd;k fd okn Hkwfe ljdkjh Hkwfe gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k && ml fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh ds fo#) oknhx.k }kjk vihy izLrqr dh xbZ rFkk izfroknhx.k Øekad 5-1 ls 5-4 }kjk izR;k{ksi fd, x, && eafnj fuekZ.k ds fo"k; esa fdlh l{ke izkfèkdkjh dh dksbZ vuqKk ugha && izfroknhx.k ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy jgs fd guqeku eafnj izkphu gS && mUgsa Hkwfe ij dCtk cuk, j[kus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha && izfroknhx.k dks izfrek gVkus ,oa llEeku vU; LFkku ij izfrf"Br djus dk funs'k && okn fMØh fd;k x;k && vihy eatwj rFkk izR;k{ksi [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 20 ls 25
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- application for additional evidence -- when cannot be allowed -- photographs and khasra of 2012 sought to be taken on record to prove that Hanuman Temple is ancient temple -- same could be filed earlier as some photographs were filed during trial -- but no due diligence exercised -- photographs also do not prove fact of temple being ancient -- land recorded as Chhota Ghas (pasture, beer or grass) in khasra -- legality of this entry cannot be vitiated -- application dismissed. [Para 13
(2) Land Revenue Act, 1881 (C. P.) -- S. 4 (11) -- lambardar -- meaning -- land recorded in name of Sevaram Lambardar in Khasra of 2012 -- Lambardar was representative of Government, to represent proprietary of Mahal -- such land cannot be treated to be private property of lambardar under Act of 1881. [Para 13
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17, proviso -- application for amendment at stage of final hearing of case -- sought to make out entirely different new case withdrawing admission -- new trial on entirely new set of facts cannot be allowed -- application dismissed. AIR 1977 SC 680, (2006) 6 SCC 498, (1998) 1 SCC 278, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and (2012) 9 SCC 349 referred to. [Para 14
(4) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 26 R. 9 -- appointment of commissioner -- for proving that temple is ancient -- when cannot be allowed -- commissioner cannot decide question as to whether temple is ancient -- no dispute of boundaries between parties -- application dismissed. [Para 14
(5) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- maintainability of suit -- already decided and suit found maintainable -- such order not challenged and attained finality -- contention of respondents that suit is barred under section 10 of M. P. Sarvajanik Sthan (Dharmik Bhavan Evam Gatividhyon ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2001 -- on other hand, respondents No. 5.1 to 5.4 pleaded that aforesaid Act not applicable -- hence, aforesaid questions are required to be finally decided. AIR 1969 SC 78 referred to. [Para 15
(6) Sarvajanik Sthan (Dharmik Bhavan Evam Gatividhiyon ka Viniyaman)Adhiniyam, 2001 (M. P.) -- S. 10 -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 237 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- maintainability of suit -- already decided and suit found maintainable -- such order not challenged and attained finality -- contention of respondents that suit is barred under section 10 of Act, 2001 -- on other hand, respondents No. 5.1 to 5.4 pleaded that aforesaid Act not applicable -- suit land recorded as Chhota Ghas land -- hence, aforesaid questions are required to be decided finally. AIR 1969 SC 78 referred to. [Para 15
(7) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 80 (1) and 80 (2) -- lack of notice -- effect -- suit filed with exemption under section 80 (2) -- plaintiffs wanted temporary injunction of urgent nature -- dispute between two communities of society -- may ignite and spark breach of peace any time -- want of notice is not fatal to suit -- suit maintainable. [Para 16
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 101 and 102 -- burden of proof -- claim that Hanuman Temple existing on suit land is ancient temple -- claimed and pleaded by defendants -- burden of proof is upon defendants. [Para 17
(9) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 117 -- khasra entries -- presumption -- unauthorized entry of “Place of Bajrang Bali” made by Patwari in column 12 of Khasra -- not proved by oral or other evidence that temple is ancient -- no presumption of correctness arises about such entry. 1991 RN 61 (HC), 1993 RN 57 (HC), 1996 RN 337 (HC) and 1993 RN 25 (HC) referred to. [Para 19
(10) Possession -- legality -- suit land recorded as Chhota Ghas (pasture, grass, beer or fodder) Government land -- defendants No. 5.1 to 5.4 claimed that there is ancient temple of Hanuman -- they have been doing worship -- same not proved -- no permission of any competent authority about construction of temple -- defendants have no legal right of possession. [Paras 20 & 21
(11) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 237 -- suit land recorded as (pasture, grass, beer or fodder) Government land -- cannot be diverted for any other purpose without permission of Collector -- defendants occupying suit land for religious purpose -- religious purpose not covered by section 237. [Paras 22 to 24
(12) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 8 -- suit for declaration and perpetual injunction -- plaintiffs pleaded that suit land recorded as Chhota Ghas (pasture, grass, beer) Government land -- surrounded by lands of Dargah-e-Hakimi -- construction of any temple on suit land be restrained -- defendants claimed that there is ancient temple of Hanuman -- they have been doing worship -- defendants admitted that suit land is Government land -- suit dismissed by trial Court -- against such judgment and decree, appeal filed by plaintiffs and cross-objection filed by defendants No. 5.1 to 5.4 -- no permission of any competent authority regarding construction of temple -- defendants failed to establish that Hanuman temple is ancient -- they have no right to remain in possession over suit land -- defendants directed to remove statue and shift it to another place with great honour -- suit decreed -- appeal allowed and cross-objection dismissed. [Paras 20 to 25
JUDGMENT
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
1. This first appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.4-A/2015 by learned First Additional District Judge, Burhanpur. By the said order, the suit filed by the appellants / plaintiffs has been dismissed. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondents No. 5.1 to 5.4 have also filed crossobjections being IA No.626/17 & 628/17, respectively. Consequently, the present appeal and the cross objections are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents / defendants in respect of the land bearing khasra No. 12 as shown in the plaint map situated in village Shahdara, Tahsil and District Burhanpur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) seeking declaration that part of Khasra No. 12 as shown in the plaint map is the government Chhotaghass (grazing) land and that no temple or permanent religious structure can be constructed or established therein by general public nor any permission to do so can be granted to general public as well as to restrain general public from constructing any permanent religious structure on the suit land and to restrain defendants No. 1 to 4 / respondents No. 1 to 4 herein from granting any permission for such construction and to direct defendants No. 1 to 4 to remove encroachment and the religious symbols.
3. Instant civil suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code with due compliance of procedural requirement and permissions against the general public. Respondents / defendants No. 5.1 to 5.4 appeared in representatives capacity of general public. They filed their written statement but the defendants no. 1 to 4 / respondents No. 1 to 4 had not filed any written statement.
4. Admitted facts of the case are that a Dargah Hakimi Burhanpur is a holy religious place of Dawoodi Bohra Community (a sect of Shia Muslims) which is situated at village Shahdara, Tahsil and District Burhanpur wherein graves are situated. The suit land of khasra No. 12 village Shahdara is recorded as government chhota ghass (posture, grass beer or fodder) land. It is also not disputed that throughout the year visitors of Bohra community are coming to the Dargah. This is also not disputed that the suit land is surrounded by Tombs, Graves, Mosque and other structures belonging to Dargah-E-Hakimi.
5. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that the appellants as plaintiffs instituted a civil suit in the representative capacity as per the provisions of under Order 1 rule 8 of the CPC against the respondents before the First Additional District Judge, Burhanpur. In the plaint it was stated that the land Khasra No. 12 (old Khasra No. 6/7) area 0.13 Hectare (0.49 acre) situated at village Shahdara, Tahsil & District Burhanpur is recorded as “Chhota Grass Land” in the revenue papers and is reserved for ‘grazing purposes’ (pasture) and is surrounded by all sides by the lands and landed properties belonging to Dargah-e-Hakimi, Burhanpur where tombs of three saints belonging to the Dawoodi Bohra community are situated. This piece of land is hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”. The Dargahi is more than 250 years old and is visited by thousands and thousands of people belonging to all religions throughout the year. The Dargah administration arranges for lodging and boarding of the members of the Dawoodi Bohra community. The Dargah premises are surrounded by a boundary wall from all sides and entry to it is controlled through Eastern and Western Gates. The lands of Dargah are stretched in the adjacent three villages namely Brogaonkhurd, Shahadara and Emagird, Tahsil Burhanpur. The properties are connected with each other. A consolidated map is part of the suit wherein
The main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.
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.
Ownership claims must be supported by existing legal documentation while adherence to limitation statutes may limit recovery rights in possession suits.
The court established that land used for religious purposes does not fall under Shamlat Deh, affirming the rights of the religious institution over the land.
Land recorded as khudkasht land in the name of the Temple belongs to the deity, and the pujari/shebait cannot acquire such land.
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
