Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1658 (RAJ)

Modh Giri v. State of Rajasthan

2003-12-13

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks striking down the Circular 1 dated 13.12.1991 (Annx.1) to the extent of deleting the name of hereditary trustee and directing respondents to enter the name of the petitioner as the Manager/Sole Trustee of Rohil Mata Temple. Sadri. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is the sole trustee of Rohil Meta Temple, Sadri and got this status in legacy Vide impugned Circular Annx. 1 dated 13.12.1991, the State Government directed the Revenue Officers to delete the name of Pujari in respect of the land of deity from the Jamabandi. The temple is 700 years old, having 4 1/2 Bighas of agricultural land, and the ancestors of the petitioner to were the Managers of the said temple. The revenue records like Parcha Lagan and Patta Ex.2 and Ex.3 issued by the Settlement Department contain the name of petitioner's father as the Manager of the temple. In compliance of the impugned order Annex. 1, the name of the petitioner shown in the Jarnabandi along with the name of the deity, has been removed from the 1s Revenue Record Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. In Temple Thakurji v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 85 , a Division Bench of this Court and in Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (3) RLW 2017 , this Court placed reliance upon a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Bishwanath & Anr. v. Thakur Rldhavallabh ji & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1044 and held that deity is a perpetual minor and as per the provisions of Section 46 of the Act 1955 its interest is to be protected by the State, Revenue Authorities and the Courts. The question of alienation of its property is not permissible save as provided under the law. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalankar Devi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 439 , held that the deity is a juristic person but it s cannot cultivate the land personally. 6. Undoubtedly, deity is a minor in perpetuity, but being juristic person. has a judicial status with the power of suing or being sued. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalankar Devi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 439 , held that the deity is a juristic person but it s cannot cultivate the land personally. 6. Undoubtedly, deity is a minor in perpetuity, but being juristic person. has a judicial status with the power of suing or being sued. Uncle,- the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, immovable properties of a minor cannot be sold without the permission of the Court. to Section 11 of the said Act puts an embargo on guardian not to alienate or deal with Minor's properties. 7. This Court in Ledan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.C.W.P No. 1325/2000 decided on 11.01.2000 it has taken the view that under no circumstance the land of the deity can be subject matter of transfer nor any is person, even having cultivatory possession, can claim khatedari rights over it. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner therein before the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 767/2000 and the same has been upheld dismissing the appeal vide order dated 12.9.2000. 8. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner, which was shown in Revenue Record along with that of the deity, has been deleted from the revenue record and there is no illegality in doing so because the land belonging to deity cannot be Khatedari land of Puraji or the Trustee and as such cannot be subjected to transfer, alienation or sale by the Puraji or Trustee. The impugned order seems to have been passed to avoid misuse of the deity's property for personal gain by the trustee/priest etc. The only right available to such trustee/priest is to continue with the worship etc., which can be decided by a competent civil court. However there is nothing wrong in deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue record because the land belongs to the deity and shall remain entered only and only in the name of o the deity. The petitioner can claim his ancestral right of worship etc. and get a decree to this effect from a competent civil court. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no coder as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******