The Apex Court on Monday decides the issues whether pujari can be treated as Bhumiswami or if they only hold the temple land for the purpose of management of the property of the temple, which actually vests with the deity.
Facts:
In the present case, the appellant challenged the quashing of 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 Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the circulars dated 12.11.1992 and 21.03.1994 were already quashed by the High Court in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively and therefore there was no justification on the part of the State Government to issue a circular dated 07.06.2008 directing the Revenue Commissioner to follow the circular dated 21.03.1994. HC 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. Hence, the instant appeal.
Submissions of the Appellant:
Appellant submitted that the preparation of revenue records including as to what entry should be incorporated in such record has been prescribed in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The State Government had issued executive instructions to delete the names of Pujari from the revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Respondent contended that the Pujaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions. It was argued that in terms of proviso to Section 57, the rights granted to the Pujaris have been protected. In terms of Section 158, every person, in respect of land held in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, confers Bhumiswami rights on the pujari, which has further been protected by a conjoint reading of Section 57 and Section 158 of the Code.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgement:
The present issue has already been considered by the courts in Pancham Singh vs. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors, which has further been affirmed by Mst Kanchaniya and Others vs.Shiv Ram and Others 1992 Latest Caselaw 113 SC. 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 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 Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager. The 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. Pujari had been given the right to manage the property of the temple, it is clear that does not elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in cultivation).
Court’s Conclusion:
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 the occupier as well. 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. Appeal allowed.
Share this Document :Picture Source :
