Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 3354 of 2024 BETWEEN:- SARMAN LODHI S/O LATE SHRI ADHARI LODHI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE MUHAS TEHSIL RITHI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SURYAPRAKASH DUBEY S/O PRAHLAD DUBEY R/O MUHAS, TAHSIL RITHI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. AARTI DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE AND SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2) This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Anvesh Shrivastava,Advocate General
The petitioner's claim should be established in the Civil Suit, and the revenue records can be corrected as per the findings of the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Revenue Record - Representation of Temple - The petitioner, claiming to be the Sarvharakar of the temple, sought to represent the temple in the revenue record. The court held that the petitioner's claim should be established in the Civil Suit, and the revenue records can be corrected as per the findings of the Civil Court. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be the Sarvharakar of the temple and sought to represent the temple in the revenue record. The petitioner's name had been deleted from the revenue record, and the name of the Collector was mentioned as the Manager along with the name of the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim should be established in the Civil Suit, and the revenue records can be corrected as per the findings of the Civil Court. The impugned orders shall not come in the way of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the representation of the temple in the revenue record, the petitioner's claim as the Sarvharakar of the temple, and the correction of revenue entries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim should be established in the Civil Suit, and the revenue records can be corrected as per the findings of the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to contest the Civil Suit and establish his case therein.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, whereby the order passed by the S.D.O. dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-4) so also the order passed by the Tehsidar dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure P/3) have been confirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Sarvharakar of temple in question and the land was purchased in the name of temple by the petitioner as representative of the temple vide sale-deed dated 05.06.1996 (Anenxure-P/1). It is the contention of the petitioner that somewhere in the year 1998, the name of petitioner was deleted from the revenue record and the name of temple was retained, but the name of Collector was mentioned as Manager along with name of temple. A recent revenue Khasra is placed on record as Annexure P-2, wherein the name of temple is mentioned through Collector, who is mentioned as manger of the temple. The petitioner had submitted application for correction of revenue entries, to insert his name in the revenue record as representative of the temple in place of the Collector, who is presently representing the temple in revenue record.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he is Sarvharakar of the temple and he is having right to represent the temple in the revenue records and in the revenue records, the name of temple is already there, but the temple should be represented in the revenue record not by Collector, but his name and designation of petitioner as Sarvharakar should be mentioned to represent the temple in the revenue record.
4. Shri K.C Ghildiyal, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Aditya Veer Singh, Advocate has rendered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and by referring to their reply, it is pointed out that the public trust has been constituted to manage the affairs of the temple and the petitioner is objecting to constitution of that public trust claiming himself to be Sarvharakar of the temple. Earlier a Writ Petition No.27106 of 2019 along with bunch of cases were filed before this Court in the matter and vide order dated 02.02.2023, this Court in para 7 has directed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by constitution of the trust or has "any grievance pertaining to the property" which has been recorded as property of the trust, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a Civil Suit in terms of provision of Madhaya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has no locus in the matter of mutation of his name because the management has already been transferred to trust, in which he is a member and also that in the matter of trust, Civil Suit is pending. It is also pointed out by referring to the orders passed in the matter of injunction by the Civil Court as well as by the Appellate Court that petitioner has duly filed the said Civil Suit and the application for injunction has been rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Civil Court has rejected the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 29.08.2023 and the foundational facts, which the present petitioner had projected before the Civil Court are that the land which is in question in the present petition has been unlawfully mutated in the name of the Collector in revenue record and also that in the registered title deed of 1996, the name of petitioner is mentioned.
7. From the aforesaid facts as mentioned in the order of the Civil Court deciding application for temporary injunction, it is clear that the petitioner has founded his claim in the Civil Suit on the averment that he is Sarvharakar of the temple and that some land of the temple was purchased by registered sale deed in which he has represented the temple. Thus, he has been asserting his right to manage the temple and to represent the temple before the Civil Court.
8. In the present litigation, whic
