{"id":253819,"date":"2021-09-08T09:00:14","date_gmt":"2021-09-08T03:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=253819"},"modified":"2021-09-09T18:34:08","modified_gmt":"2021-09-09T13:04:08","slug":"who-will-be-the-owner-of-temple-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/08\/who-will-be-the-owner-of-temple-property\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Decodes | Pujari who performs puja and maintains temple property, will he be treated as Bhumiswami? Who will be the owner of temple property? \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: Bench of <\/strong>Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., while addressing the matter pertaining to rights of the priest, observed that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cPujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026name of the Collector as manager cannot be recorded in respect of property vested in the deity as the Collector cannot be a manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with the State.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Subject matter of challenge in the present matter was an order passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at the instance of Madhya Pradesh.<\/p>\n

In the said order, writ petition filed by the Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 was allowed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n

Crux of the matter was to quash the circulars whereby the names of Pujari were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record.<\/p>\n

Single Bench held that 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 circular dated 7-06-2008 directing the Revenue Commissioner to follow the circular dated 21-03-1994.<\/p>\n

In the intra-court appeal against the Single Bench decision, the High Court held that Pujaris had no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have rights only with respect to either cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. The High Court further 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.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Supreme Court found that there is a lack of clarity in the High Court in regard to legal jurisprudence.<\/p>\n

\n

Different judgments have been referred to in respect of rights of the priests as to whether they 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Bench noted that one of earlier judgments on the right of a priest was rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported as Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas,<\/em>1971 SCC OnLine MP 26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the above-cited decision, it was held that Section 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran Jujve Araji, Samwat 19916 was examined as to the remedy of ejectment of a pujari who claimed status of Mourushi Kashtakar as under Section 248 (1) of the Code or by way of a civil suit. It was held that a 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

In Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram<\/em>, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250<\/a> Supreme Court considered the Gwalior Act as well as theM.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.<\/span>\u00a0The decision of Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas,<\/em> 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26 <\/a>was approved.<\/p>\n

Circular dated 12-11-1992 was issued wherein the name of the Collector was directed to be recorded as a manager whereas the name of the Pujari of the concerned Devasthan was to be recorded in Column No. 12. The said circular was under consideration before the Division Bench in Ghanshyamdas II<\/em>. It was held that the Pujaris have no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have to cultivate the land or to get the land cultivated through their servants for the maintenance of the temple and also perform the daily rituals. They do not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple.<\/p>\n

As per the Circular dated 21-03-1994, it was directed that the name of the Pujari should not be recorded in any of the column of the Panchama (revenue record). The Collector was directed to maintain a separate register for maintaining the records of the priest.<\/p>\n

In the present matter the question to be considered was:<\/p>\n