M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Rights of Pujari – A writ petition filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 to quash the circulars dated 21.03.1994 and 07.06.2008 whereby the names of Pujari were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition – However, in the intracourt appeal, it was held that if the temple was managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down from time to time, his name was required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of the deity – Before the Supreme Court, the respondents contended that the Pujaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions – Held: The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land – He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami – The Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager – Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage – Since the priest cannot be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under any of the provisions of the Code – There is no mandate in any of the judgments or any rule has been brought to notice to hold that the name of Pujari or manager is required to be mentioned in the revenue record – In the absence of any prohibition either in the statute or in the rules, the executive instruction can be issued to supplement the statute and the rules framed thereunder – Such instructions do not contravene any of the provisions of the Code or the rules – Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of the authority vested in the State Government – The order of the High Court cannot be sustained – The Circulars dated 21.3.1994 and 7.6.2008 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. Dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and as a consequence under the Code.
1.2 This question has already been considered by the courts in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors., which has further been affirmed by Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others. The Law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to man- age the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami. The Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage. [Para 20][704-H; 705-A-C]
1.3 Taking into consideration the past precedents, and the fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given right to manage the property of the temple, it is clear that that does not elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in cultivation). [Para 23][705-E-F]
2. Whether the priest is Inamdar or Maufidar within the meaning of Section 158 (1)(b) of the Code.
2.1 Such provision contemplates that the rights of every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region i.e. area of erstwhile Gwalior and Holkar as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder shall be protected as Bhumiswami. The priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158 (1)(b) of the Code. The maufi was granted to the property of temples from payment of land revenue. Such maufi was not granted to a manager. Even Inam granted by the Jagirdar or the ruler to a priest is only to manage the property of the temple and not confer ownership right on the priest. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Pancham Singh and also of this Court in Kanchaniya, the priest cannot be treated to be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) or in terms of Gwalior Act. Since the priest cannot be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under any of the provisions of the Code. [Para 24][705-F-H; 706-A-B]
3. Whether the State Government by way of executive instructions can order the deletion of name of Pujari from the revenue record and/or to insert the name of a Collector as manager of the temple.
3.1 In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that even if temple was being managed by the Pujari, his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with name of deity. This Court does not find any mandate in any of the judgments to hold that the name of Pujari or man- ager is required to be mentioned in the revenue record. [Para 25][706-C-D]
3.2 In terms of Section 108, 109 and 110 of the Code, Rules had been framed initially as Appendix X. Form A has been prescribed as per Rule 2. Later such Rules were substituted by another Rules published on 15.5.1964 and Form I was prescribed to maintain the records of the rights. Such Rules have been further substituted on 20th December 1983, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette. The Column 3 of such Form is to contain name and address of the occupier, whereas Column 4 is required to contain name of the tenant or sub-lessee of an occupancy tenant of the Bhumiswami. Column 12 is meant for remarks. [Para 26][706-D-E]
3.3 In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that if the name of the Pujari is recorded in the column No. 12 i.e. column of remarks, it will not affect the rights of the Pujari so long as he is performing his functions properly and cultivating the land or getting the land cultivated through servants. Therefore, the name of the Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remark’s column. [Para 27][707-D-F]
3.4 No rule has been brought to the notice that the name of the manager has to be recorded in the land records. In the absence of any prohibition either in the statute or in the rules, the executive instruction can be issued to supplement the statute and the rules framed thereunder. Such instructions do not contravene any of the provisions of the Code or the rules. Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of the authority vested in the State Government. [Para 28][707-F-G]
4. Another argument was raised that such circulars of the State Government shall be applicable to the public temples and not to the private temples. A bare reading of the circulars does not make out such distinction. However, a temple in a house or which is not open to the public cannot be treated to be a public temple. However, it will be a question in each case whether it is a public temple or a private temple which can be decided in the appropriate proceedings. For the purpose of the present appeal, we find that the circular is applicable to all temples unless a particular temple is able to satisfy the competent forum of it being a private temple. [Para 30][709-B-D]
M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others (2020) 1 SCC 1 – followed.
Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others AIR 1992 SC 1239 : [1992] 2 SCR 670; Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 133 : [1956] SCR
756 – relied on.
Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another AIR 1970 SC
532 : [1970] 1 SCR 634 – referred to.
Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P 1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235 (‘Ghanshyamdas I); Sadashiv Giri & Ors. v. Commissioner, Ujjain & Ors. 1985 RN 317; Shri Krishna v. State of M.P. 2012 (4) MPLJ 466 –
disapprove.
Kashi Bhatti through LRs v. State of M.P. 2009 R.N. 179; State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas 1999 R.N. 25 (‘Ghanshyamdas II); Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors. AIR 1972 MP 147; State of M.P. and Others v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao 1999 RN 392 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.