Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
MAHANT RAGHUVEERDAS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 15837 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravindra Dixit
A pujari does not possess independent rights over temple property and must demonstrate legal title to challenge management decisions; absence of notice does not invalidate orders if no prejudice is shown.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition challenging order of Collector for management of temple - Petitioner claimed hereditary rights as Pujari but failed to establish legal title or possession - Supreme Court jurisprudence clarified that a pujari is a servant of the shebait and has no independent rights over temple property. (Paras 4, 5, 17)
(B) Natural Justice - Right to be heard is not absolute and must show prejudice - Court ruled that absence of prior notice did not invalidate the order as no prejudice was demonstrated. (Paras 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
Petition filed against the Collector's order constituting a management committee for a temple without notice to the petitioner, who claimed to be a Pujari and disciple but lacked documentation to support his claim.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to prove any title or right over the property, and the order constituted by the Collector was upheld.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to be heard before the committee's formation and the nature of the property in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the rights of a pujari are subordinate to those of a shebait, and the absence of a hearing does not invalidate an order if no prejudice is shown.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) That, the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 2, Collector, District Bhind (M.P.) may kindly be quashed /set aside.
(ii) That, the Respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any further steps to interfere with the hereditary management of the temple by the Petitioner.
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to petitioner doing justice in the matter. Costs be also awarded."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by impugned order dated 21.04.2025, Collector, Bhind has constituted a committee for management of Shri Rishi Dev, Gautam Rishi, Golmeshwar Mahadev Mandir. It is submitted that petitioner is a Pujari of the said temple. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner, aforesaid managing committee has been constituted. It is further submitted that property is a private property. It was allotted by Officer Mafi, Gwalior Government by order dated 26.07.1932 which has been filed as Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that the name of Chunnilal, legal representative of Ramchand was also mutated in the revenue records. Petitioner is the Chela / disciple of Ramsnehidas. It is submitted that once the petitioner is in possession of the temple in question in the capacity of Chela / disciple of Ramsnehidas, then he was a necessary party and he should have been heard before the managing committee was constituted. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that even petitioner is not in possession of any document to show that he was ever accepted by Ramsnehidas as his Chela / disciple. Petitioner has claimed himself to be the Pujari. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that there is nothing on record to show that Ramsnehidas was the legal representative of Chunnilal.
3. Heard counsel for petitioner.
4. The rights of Pujari have already been explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust Vs. Balakrishna Bhat , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 495 , and M. Siddique (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 has held as under :-
"435. A final point may be made with respect to shebaits. A pujari who conducts worship at a temple is not merely, by offering worship to the idol, elevated to the status of a shebait. A pujari is a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait despite having conducted the ceremonies for a long period of time. Thus, the mere presence of pujaris does not vest in them any right to be shebaits. In Gauri Shankar v. Ambika Dutt, the plaintiff was the descendant of a person appointed as a pujari on property dedicated for the worship of an idol. A suit was instituted for claiming partition of the right to worship in the temple and a division of the offerings. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the relevant question is whether the debutter appointed the pujari as a shebait. Ramaswami, J. held : (SCC OnLine Pat para 7)
“7. … It is important to state that a pujari or archak is not a shebait. A pujari is appointed by the Shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship. But that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the Shebait to the purohit. He is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. He is merely a servant appointed by the Shebait for the performance of ceremonies. Where the appointment of a purohit has been at the will of the founder the mere fact that the appointees have performed the worship for several generations, will not confer an independent right upon the members of the family so appointed and will not entitle them as of right to be continued in office as priest.”
436. A shebait is vested with the authority to manage the properties of the deity and ensure the fulfilment of the purpose
