Temple's Public Nature Determined by Public Use and Management, Not Just Registration: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-04-02

Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms Shree Janki Raman Mandir as Public Temple Based on Public Use and Management

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – January 2, 2025 – The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the decision of lower courts, declaring Shree Janki Raman Mandir, along with Shri Thakur Ji Mandir, Shriram Laxman Janki Mandir, and Shri Hanuman Mandir in Village Lalbandha Talab, Arjuni, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, as public temples. Justice Parth PrateemSahu presided over the case (SA No. 197 of 2022), dismissing an appeal that contested the temples' public status.

Case Background and Legal Question

The appellant, Shree Janki Raman Mandir, represented by Sarwarakar Chandrika Prasad Sharma , filed a suit seeking the removal of the Collector's name as Manager from land records, a declaration of title, and a permanent injunction. The core contention of the appellant was that the temples, constructed around 1972 by Smt. Sarjawati Bai and relatives, were private family temples. They argued that the Collector's name was wrongly added as Manager based on a government circular applicable only to temples on government land, not private temples. The appellant maintained that as Sarwarakar , Chandrika Prasad Sharma was managing the temples and their lands.

The respondents, including the State of Chhattisgarh, the Collector, and local villagers, countered that the temples were built for public worship and had always been managed by the Village Panchayat Arjuni and its residents. They pointed to the Collector's appointment as Manager as evidence of the temples' public nature.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Arguments:

The temples are private and were never registered as a public trust under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. Lack of registration, according to the appellant, inherently signifies private status.

The Collector's name was erroneously included in revenue records without notice or proper inquiry, based on a circular inapplicable to privately owned land.

The temples have been managed privately by Sarwarkars appointed by the donors' family.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Anr. , to argue against automatic public designation.

Respondents' Arguments:

The temples were constructed for public worship and have been consistently used by the general public for prayers and festivals.

Villagers have historically managed the temples' affairs, including fundraising for maintenance and deity replacement after theft.

The Collector's name in revenue records and the Tehsildar's order appointing Chandrika Prasad Sharma as Sarwarakar (while retaining the Collector as Manager) indicated awareness and acceptance of the public status.

Evidence showed public contributions and participation in temple activities, demonstrating its public character irrespective of formal registration.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and referenced key Supreme Court judgments to determine the public or private nature of the temples. Justice Sahu emphasized that the absence of formal registration under the Public Trusts Act does not automatically classify a temple as private.

The court drew heavily from the principles laid down in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Ranchhoddas Kalidas & Ors. , which outlines factors to ascertain a temple's public character:

> "In such cases the true character of the particular temple is decided on the basis of various circumstances. In those cases the courts have to address themselves to various questions such as: (1) Is the temple built in such imposing manner that it may prima facie appear to be a public temple? (2) Are the members of the public entitled to worship in that temple as of right; (3) Are the temple expenses met from the contributions made by the public? (4) Whether the Sevas and Utsavas conducted in the temple are those usually conducted in public temples? (5) Have the management as well as the devotees been treating that temple as a public temple?"

Applying these criteria, the High Court noted the consistent evidence presented by the respondents: villagers' involvement in managing temple affairs, public worship without restriction, community contributions for temple upkeep and deity replacement, and the Collector's long-standing designation as Manager in revenue records.

The court also considered Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar , reiterating that the core distinction between public and private endowments lies in whether the beneficiaries are specific individuals or the general public. Evidence clearly pointed towards the general public being the beneficiaries in this case.

The court acknowledged the "preponderance of probabilities" standard applicable in civil cases, as highlighted in M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janambhumi Temple Case) vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others , stating:

> "From the above decisions it is apparent that the civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies."

Based on this standard, the court found that the evidence preponderantly favored the temples being public in nature.

Final Decision and Implications

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The court affirmed that Shree Janki Raman Mandir and associated temples are public temples. This decision reinforces the legal principle that the public character of a temple is determined not solely by its registration status but significantly by its usage, management, and the demonstrable rights of the public to worship. The Collector will continue to be recognized as the Manager, and the temples will be governed as public religious institutions.