Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P. K. Jaiswal and Vivek Rusia, JJ.
State of M.P. and others v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and another
Writ Appeal No.617 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 14.6.2016.
¼2½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ & èkkjk 2¼1½ & 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & eafnj dh Hkwfe & eafnj ds lkFk iqtkjh dk uke vfHkfyf[kr & dyDVj dk uke izca/k ds :i esa tksM+us ds laca/k esa iwoZrj ifji= fnukad 12-4-1974] 29-5-1979] 12-11-1992 rFkk 21-3-1994 & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk[kafMr & iqu% ifji=@vkns'k fnukad 7-6-2008 tkjh fd;k x;k & bl ifji= }kjk ifji= fnukad 21-3-1994 ds vuqlkj tks igys ls gh vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk pqdk gS mlds vuqlkj [kljk esa dyDVj dk uke vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds fy, vk;qDr funsf'kr & ,slk ifji= fnukad 7-6-2008 fjV U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk[kafMr fd;k x;k & fjV U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k & fd dyDVj ls eafnjksa dh laifÙk dk izca/k djus dh vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj iqtkfj;ksa@U;kfl;ksa ds fgr lajf{kr fd, tkuk pkfg, & bl laca/k esa fof/k fojfpr djus ds fy, ljdkj Hkh funsf'kr & gLr{ksi dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha curk & fjV vihy [kkfjt dh xbZ & fjV U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 2405@2009 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2013 vfHkiq"VA
¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & èkkjk 110 & Hkw&vfHkys[k fu;ekoyh & [kaM 5 & eafnj ;k nsork }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe & iqtkjh ;k U;kl tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks dk uke & [kljk ds dkWye ua-3 esa eafnj@nsork ds lkFk mfYyf[kr djuk visf{kr gSA ¼iSjk 10
(1) Temple -- land belongs to Temple -- name of Pujari recorded with Temple -- by Circular No.745/3693/VIII/73 dated 12.4.1974 -- name of Collector recorded as Manager -- by Circular No.2/Devsthan/79/18616 dated 29.5.1979 -- Temple’s land directed to be auctioned -- these circulars quashed by High Court and held that not applicable to private Temples -- again Circular dated 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 issued -- same quashed by High Court -- by Circular/Order dated 7.6.2008 -- it is directed to Commissioner that name in khasra be recorded as per Circular dated 21.3.1994 which has already been quashed -- name of Collector is being mentioned as Manager -- writ petition against such Circular/Order -- writ Court held -- that it is not expected from Collector to manage property of Temples -- to protection interest of Temples and also Pujari’s -- Circular/Order dated 7.6.2008 quashed -- it is directed that if Temple is managed by Pujari or Trust -- name of Pujari of Trust is required to be mentioned along with deity -- Government also directed for framing law in that regard -- writ appeal against such order of writ Court -- no ground made out for interference -- writ appeal dismissed. 1992 RN 194(SC) followed. 1971 RN 359 (HC) relied on. 1985 RN 317 (HC), 2013 RN 215 (HC), 1995 RN 235 (HC) and 1999 RN 25 (HC) referred to. [Paras 12 & 13
(2) Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2(1) -- scope of powers -- land belongs to Temple -- name of Pujari recorded with Temple -- earlier Circular dated 12.4.1974, 29.5.1979, 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 -- regarding adding name of Collector as Manager -- quashed by High Court -- again Circular/Order dated 7.6.2008 issued -- by this Circular Commissioner directed that name in khasra be recorded as per circular dated 21.3.1994 which has already been quashed -- such Circular dated 7.6.2008 quashed by writ Court -- it is also held by writ Court -- that it is not expected from Collector to manage property of Temples and rights of Pujaries/Trusts should be protected -- Government also directed for framing law in that regard -- no ground made out for interference -- writ appeal dismissed -- order dated 20.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.2405/2009 by writ Court affirmed. [Paras 12 & 13
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.110 -- Land Record Manual -- Cl.5 -- land owned by Temple or deity -- name of Pujari or Trust as the case may be -- is required to be mentioned along with Temple/deity in column No.3 of khasra. [Para 10
Jaiswal, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against order dated 20.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.9043/2013, whereby learned writ Court has quashed order/memorandum dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21) and directed the State Government to mention name of Pujari in revenue records and further direction to legislate law to avoid repeated litigation.
2. Last two paragraphs of the order are relevant, which read, as under:-
“Keeping in view that circular dated 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 were quashed by this Court, therefore there was no justification on the part of State Government to advice the Revenue Commissioner, Ujjain to follow the circular dated 21.3.1994. In fact, to issue such type of directions amounts to contempt of Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The revenue entries are the record of rights which are being maintained under section 110 of MPLRC, 1959. As per clause 5 of land record manuals in column No.3 of Khasra entries deals with name of occupier. Column No.4 deals with name of Bhumiswami or lessees or his representatives while column No.12 deals with remarks. Undisputedly, the land which is owned by the Trust, the name of the deity/Temple or Trust as the case may be, is required to be mentioned in column No.3. If the Temple is managed by the Pujari then keeping in view the law laid down by this Court from time to time his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of deity. It appears that the apprehension of the State Government is based on the past experience wherein Pujaris have misused their position and valuable property of the Temple was transferred for negligible amount, therefore to protect the interest of the deity, Temple or Trust as the case may be, in case of properties are managed by the Trust on behalf of the deity or Temple, the name of the Trust be mentioned. If the name of Pujari was mentioned in the revenue record on 12.11.1992 when the order Annexure P-11 was issued, then only his name shall be mentioned as Pujari in Column No.3 below the name of deity with a remark in red ink to the effect that Pujari has no right to transfer or to create any charge over the land in any manner.
The name of Collector is being mentioned as manager. It is true that by mentioning the name of Collector as manager, properties owned by the Temples were saved, but at the same time the properties could not be managed properly as it is not expected from the Collector to manage the properties of the Temples. To protect the interest of the Temples and also to protect the interest of Pujaris who are entitled to get the benefits of the scheme which are being introduced by the Government for the benefits of the agriculturist. To protect the interest of Temples/deities, Government should take appropriate steps by making the law in that regard by suitable legislation as the problem is lying in the Court in number of cases for last 30 years. In result the impugned order dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21) is quashed.”
3. The respondents/petitioners – a registered society is All India Organization having Pujaris as its Members. They are managing the affairs of private temples, who are serving idol established and installed in such private temples and are doing Puja-Archana also.
4. They challenged the circular/order/memorandum dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21).
5. Initially on 12.11.1964 (Annexure P-7) a circular was issued by the State Government. Thereafter, circular dated 12.4.1974 (Annexure P/9) was issued. The same was challenged by filing Miscellaneous Petition No.187/1979 on the ground that private temples were not covered by the said circular and land belonging to private temples cannot be treated as Government Land. The aforesaid circular relates to temples of public trust and not of private temples. A Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, after appreciating the arguments of the parties, allowed the miscellaneous petiti
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
