Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata ... vs Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti on 2 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:29861
AFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.07.03
17:50:03 +0530
WP227 No. 58 of 2016
Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee Through
President Murli Manohar Sharma Son Of Late Bhedu Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 68 Years, Resident Of Vindhyavasini Ward, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner(s)
versus
Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti Through So Called President Satish Rao
Pawar @ Boby Resident Of Marathapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
02/07/2025
Heard.
1. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is to the order dated 03/10/2015 (Annexure-P/1)
passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattattisgarh, Bilaspur (for short 'the
BoD') in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./R/04/A-20(3)/389/2012,
whereby theBoD has dismissed the said Revenue Revision case.
2. Facts as projected in the Writ Petition are that the petitioner has filed an
application before the Tahsildar, Dhamtari, for entering his name in the
non-applicant trust in which the learned Tahsildar passed an order dated
27.02.2003 in Case No. 3-A/74 year 2001-02 directing the President of
respondent trust to add name of petitioner (Ashwani Dubey). Being
aggrieved of that order, respondent prefers an appeal bearing Appeal
case No. 79-A/74 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari
which was allowed by the SDO by setting-aside the order of Tahsildar.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/President of
Pujarigan Vidhyavasini Temple, Dhamtari preferred an appeal before the
Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which came to be
rejected. Thereagainst, the petitioner/ Pujarigan Vidhyavasini Temple,
Dhamtari approached the BoD by filing a revision. After considering the
facts, the revision of the petitioner also dismissed by impugned order
dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure-P/1). Thus, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by
the Tahsildar directing the respondent to add the name of the petitioner
in the respondent trust was just and proper. However, in the subsequent
proceedings the SDO, the Additional Commissioner and the BoD have
not at all appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true
perspective and rendered the decision against the writ petitioner herein.
He would further submit that the learned Revenue Board without going
to the order dated 06/11/1985 has passed the impugned order, which is
bad in the eye-of-law. He prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently
argued that the petitioner herein was not a party before the Board of
Revenue and as such, they cannot challenge the order impugned on the
ground of lack of locus standi. He would submit that the petitioner
mentioned in Para 8.2 to 8.5 of the petition that the instant petition has
been preferred against the rejection of the application for enter the name
of the petitioner in the respondent trust but the petitioner filed different
order of the learned Additional Commissioner which relates to the
dispute pertaining to the correction of the revenue record in the name of
the petitioner public trust. Therefore, the entire petition is not supported
by the actual facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
6. From the record, it is apparent that before issuance of the lease/patta in
the year 1985 for a period of 30 years, Vindhyavasini Temple Trust
Committee (respondent) was duly registered on 23.1.1974 for the
management of the temple in question and it had started working. In
relation to the lease/patta issued by the Nazul officer in the year 1985,
the non-applicant filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the land in
1989 before the Civil Judge Class-II Dhamtari, in which the following
conclusions were drawn in the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1989:-
"Vindhyavasini Trust Committee is a duly registered
institution since 23.01.1974 and is looking after the
property of the temple. According to the constitution of the
trust, the trustees have the right to appoint a manager on
the basis of majority and the management of the temple
property is entrusted to the trust. It cannot be accepted that
the property of the temple in question is the property of any
particular person. It cannot be said that the property of the
temple belongs to the ancestors of the priests. In such a
situation, when the trust has been in existence and is active
since the year 1974, it will be naturally assumed that it has
the right to look after the property, otherwise the status of
the trustee will be like that of a king who does not have a
throne."
7. It is noteworthy to mention here that the aforesaid judgment and decree
dated 21/9/1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dhamtari,
has attained finality as the same has never been challenged before any
higher forum. In the said judgment and decree the learned civil Court
categorically held that the respondent herein i.e. Vindhyavasini Trust
Committee is a duly registered institution since 23.01.1974 and is
looking after the property of the temple. According to the constitution of
the trust, the trustees have the right to appoint a manager on the basis of
majority and the management of the temple property is entrusted to the
trust and, as such, it cannot be accepted that the property of the temple in
question is the property of any particular person. It has also been held
that it cannot be said that the property of the temple belongs to the
ancestors of the priests and in such a situation, when the trust has been in
existence and is active since the year 1974, it will be naturally assumed
that it has the right to look after the property, otherwise the status of the
trustee will be like that of a king who does not have a throne. The BoD
after appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter
and spirit and after considering the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Civil Court has rightly declined to entertain the revision filed by
the petitioner. The order passed by the BoD is just and proper and also
speaking and reasoned order and hence no interference is required.
8. Be that as it may, the law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not
a Kashtkar Mourushi. 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. He cannot be thus
treated as a Bhumiswami. It is also the trite law 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. It is pertinent to mention here that if the Pujari claims
proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it is an act of
mismanagement and he is not fit to remain in possession or to continue
as a Pujari.
9. In the case at hand, it is apparent that the respondent trust is a duly
registered trust and is rendering its service since 23.1.1974 and merely
on the basis of allotment of patta/lease in the year 1985 the petitioner
cannot be allowed to claim right on the temple property. Even against
the said patta a civil suit was filed, which was decided by judgment and
decree dated 21.9.1989 and the same has attained finality as the same
has never been challenged before any higher forum.
10. Apart from this, on perusal of the order of the Board of Revenue,
Bilaspur, it is quite vivid that the petitioner therein was 'Pujarigan
Vidhyavasini Mandir, Dhamtari through Power of Attorney, Ramesh
Tiwari', whereas in the instant petition, the impugned order passed by
the BoD has been challenged by 'Shri Vindyavasini Maa Bilaimata
Pujari Parishad Committee, through President Murli Manohar Sharma'.
Thus, the petitioner herein has no locus to challenge the order impugned
as he, even, was not a party to the impugned order.
11. In view of foregoing, the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, sans substratum, deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Rahul/Gowri
HEAD NOTE
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. He cannot be thus treated as a
Bhumiswami.
iqtkjh nso LFky dh lEifRr dk lapkyu djus gsrq ,d vuqnku izkIrdrkZ ek= gS vkSj
,sls vuqnku dks okil fy;k tk ldrk gS ;fn iqtkjh mls lkSik x;k dk;Z djus vFkkZr izkFkZuk
¼iwtk&ikB½ djus esa foQy jgrk gS A vr% mls HkwfeLokeh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS A
