Gujarat High Court Rejects Pujari's Claim to Temple Land, Upholds Removal of Encroachment on Public Road

Introduction

In a significant ruling on property rights and religious structures, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed a second appeal by a temple priest (pujari) challenging the removal of an unauthorized Ganesh Temple constructed on a public access road. Justice J. C. Doshi, in his order dated January 8, 2026, emphasized that a pujari holds no proprietary interest in temple land and cannot claim adverse possession, as they are merely servants to the deity. The case, arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 2011, involved landowner Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi seeking to clear encroachments blocking access to her plots. The lower courts had already ruled in her favor, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory removal under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. This decision reinforces judicial caution against illegal constructions on public spaces, particularly those masquerading as religious sites, and aligns with Supreme Court precedents protecting public rights while limiting claims by temple functionaries.

The dispute highlights tensions between private property access, public road usage, and the sanctity of religious structures, with the High Court prioritizing legal ownership and statutory limitations on possession claims. By dismissing the appeal at the admission stage under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the court underscored that second appeals are not opportunities for re-litigating facts but require substantial questions of law, which were absent here.

Case Background

The origins of this litigation trace back to 1995 when respondent No. 1, Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi, purchased several plots—Nos. 60, 61, 62, and 63 in Survey No. 111/A/1/2 and 1/3 paiki 3—totaling 468 square meters in Vavdi Buzurg village, Panchmahal district. These plots had been converted to non-agricultural (NA) land, with a 6-meter public road on the northern side providing essential egress and ingress. The road, under the jurisdiction of the local Gram Panchayat as a public thoroughfare, was meant to ensure unobstructed access.

Trouble began when Modi received an invitation for the inauguration of a new Ganesh Temple on what she believed was encroaching upon her property's entrance. Upon inspection, she discovered ongoing construction by defendants, including appellant RameshBhai Umakant Sharma, who identified himself as the pujari (priest) of the temple. The structure, allegedly ancient but with recent expansions, was positioned on the public road, obstructing Modi's access. Despite protests and an unsuccessful police complaint, Modi filed Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 2011 before the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, seeking declarations of her ownership, permanent prohibitory injunction against further construction, and mandatory removal of the encroachment under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

The defendants included various individuals linked to the temple's devotees, with Sharma (defendant No. 6) as the sole active contestant, filing a written statement at Exh. 33. He claimed the temple dated back centuries, built by one Lakha Vanzara, and that he had been performing puja there for over 12 years, residing in an attached house with utilities like electricity. Notably, defendants Nos. 3 and 5 (Chunial Dharasiyani and Hismatray Sonaiya) passed away during proceedings and were deleted as formal parties.

The trial court framed seven issues, including Modi's lawful possession, the defendants' unauthorized entry and construction on the public road, limitation bars under Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Sharma's adverse possession claim. After evidence, including a court commissioner's report confirming the encroachment, the trial court decreed the suit on December 29, 2023, in Modi's favor, restraining further construction and ordering removal from the public road.

Aggrieved, Sharma appealed to the 6th Additional District Judge, Godhra (Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2024), which was dismissed on November 29, 2025, confirming the decree but modifying it to mandate immediate removal of all illegal structures on the suit property and entrance. Most defendants accepted the ruling without appeal, leaving Sharma to file the second appeal (R/Second Appeal No. 10 of 2026) along with a stay application, raising 13 substantial questions of law, from limitation to non-joinder and adverse possession.

The timeline underscores a protracted battle: suit filed in 2011, trial decree in 2023, first appeal dismissal in 2025, and High Court dismissal in early 2026. This delay highlights challenges in resolving property disputes involving religious sentiments, yet the courts consistently upheld Modi's rights to unhindered access.

Arguments Presented

The plaintiff's case centered on clear ownership via a registered sale deed dated November 6, 1995, and the encroachment's interference with her property rights. Modi argued the temple's construction on the 6-meter public road violated public and private access, triggered by the 2011 invitation card and newspaper publication signaling the inauguration. She denied knowledge of prior encroachments, asserting the suit was within limitation as the cause arose from the fresh construction threat. Supported by the commissioner's report, she sought not just injunctions but mandatory demolition to restore the road, emphasizing no obstruction proof was needed beyond the visible blockage.

Sharma, as appellant and pujari, mounted a multi-pronged defense. In his written statement and appeal, he portrayed the temple as an ancient structure, famous among devotees for festivals and worship, not a recent build. He claimed continuous, open possession for over 12 years—evidenced by ration cards, electricity bills, birth certificates, and tax receipts—perfecting title via adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Sharma argued the suit was time-barred under Articles 58 and 65, as Modi admitted the structure's decades-long existence. He contested maintainability, citing non-joinder of the Gram Panchayat (statutory owner of public roads) under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and vagueness in the plaint's relief prayers under Order VII Rule 7 CPC—no specific mandatory demolition was explicitly sought.

Further, Sharma challenged the commissioner's report as contradictory to Modi's admissions and lacking measurements tied to revenue maps, rendering findings perverse. He alleged the lower courts ignored his evidence, failed to frame proper issues under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, and introduced unpleaded findings like idol constructions on private plots. Sharma also invoked natural justice, arguing devotees and the Panchayat should have been impleaded, and that disturbing a longstanding religious site without them violated public rights. His counsel, Mr. Vijal P. Desai, pressed these as substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC, seeking admission and reversal to protect the temple's status.

The respondents, led by Modi, countered that Sharma's possession was permissive as pujari, not hostile, and irrelevant since the land was public. They highlighted the temple's location on the road, not private plots, negating proprietary claims. No other devotees or trustees contested, underscoring Sharma's solitary stand.

Legal Analysis

Justice Doshi's reasoning methodically dismantled Sharma's claims, grounding the dismissal in established principles of civil procedure, property law, and religious endowments. Central was the pujari's status: drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the court held Sharma lacked proprietary rights, being merely a "servant of the deity" without ownership or occupancy akin to a bhumiswami.

Key precedents fortified this. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, the Supreme Court clarified that temple land vests in the deity, with pujaris as appointees for puja and maintenance, gaining no independent rights. Para 20 explicitly rejected pujari claims to bhumiswami status, citing the erroneous view in Sadashiv Giri v. Commissioner, Ujjain (1985 RN 317). Echoing this, M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1 (Ayodhya verdict) affirmed: "A pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait despite having conducted ceremonies over a period of time."

On adverse possession, the court invoked Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316, requiring proof of "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario"—open, continuous, hostile possession without permission. Sharma failed this, as his role was devotional, not adversarial; a servant cannot claim against the deity or true owner. Kishundeo Rout v. Govind Rao (2025 INSC 956) reinforced that such claims need foundational facts pleaded pre-suit, which were absent. The court noted a "growing tendency" of misuse but stressed the claimant's burden to establish date, nature, knowledge, duration, and undisturbed possession.

Procedurally, under Section 100 CPC, no substantial question of law emerged. Citing Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 and Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh (2023) 20 SCC 104, second appeals target legal errors, not factual reappreciation. Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (AIR 2020 SC 4321) outlined exceptions like ignoring evidence or erroneous law application, none applicable here. The lower courts' concurrent findings—on issues like possession, limitation (fresh cause in 2011), and non-joinder (Panchayat unnecessary for private injunction)—were unassailable.

The court distinguished public road encroachments from private disputes, aligning with Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin (2025 INSC 610), mandating strict approaches to illegal constructions: "Courts must adopt a strict approach... to uphold the rule of law." Union of India v. State of Gujarat (2011) 14 SCC 62 prohibited unauthorized religious builds on public spaces, urging expeditious removal. The decree's vagueness was rejected, as it targeted the identified road encroachment, executable via the commissioner's report.

This analysis clarifies pujari limitations versus deity ownership, quashing permissive possession as adverse, and prioritizes public access over unsubstantiated religious claims, distinguishing from shebait rights in endowed properties.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations underscoring legal boundaries:

• On pujari status: "The status of the defendant Pujari is no more than Pujari... He is just servant of deity. A servant thus, has no right to claim that his possession over the suit property is on behalf of his master and matured into title on principle of adverse possession."

• Rejecting proprietary claims: Quoting State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti : "The presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple. The Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity."

• Adverse possession requisites: "In order to claim adverse possession, the litigant requires to plead and prove classic requirement being nec vi, nec clan and nec precario... A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour."

• Judicial restraint on appeals: "The second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence."

• Strict stance on encroachments: From Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin : "The Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions."

These excerpts illuminate the court's fidelity to precedent, ensuring religious functionaries do not usurp public or proprietary domains.

Court's Decision

The Gujarat High Court unequivocally dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, upholding the lower courts' decrees. No substantial questions of law were found, rendering interference unwarranted. The operative orders remain: permanent injunction against further construction or entry onto the suit property, and mandatory removal of the illegal temple structure from the public road, now immediate per the appellate modification.

Practically, this mandates demolition, restoring Modi's access without affecting any legitimate temple on non-encroaching land. The stay application was disposed of consequentially. Implications are profound: it curtails pujari overreach, affirming deity-centric ownership and barring adverse possession by servants. For future cases, it signals zero tolerance for public space encroachments under religious guise, potentially expediting removals in similar disputes across India. Local authorities like Gram Panchayats may invoke this for proactive enforcement, deterring "growing tendencies" of opportunistic claims. While protecting private rights, it balances by not invalidating genuine ancient temples absent encroachment proof, fostering orderly urban planning amid cultural sensitivities.

This ruling, neutral citation 2026:GUJHC:3973, serves as a bulwark for property law integrity, reminding that devotion does not confer title, and public roads remain inviolable.