Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 188 (MP)

Murti Shri Ram Mandir v. State of M. P.

2011-02-09

N.K.MODY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.9.10 passed by II ADJ, (Fast Track), Jaora Distt. Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/10, whereby the judgment dated 28.4.10 passed by Civil judge, Class-I Jaora in Civil Suit No. 85-A/06, whereby the suit filed by appellants for declaration was dismissed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit? ii. Whether the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration settled position of law that the name of Pujari cannot be deleted in land records by an executive instruction? 3. Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit on 6.4.06 for declaration alleging that Shri Ram Mandir is situated at Piploda. It was alleged that temple is owned by appellants Nos. 1 & 2. It was alleged that previously the temple was looked after by Guru Mohandasji and after his death appellant No. 2 & 3 being disciple are looking after the temple. It was alleged that earlier Guru Balakdasji filed a suit relating to the temple in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaora on 18.7.79, as the land which was owned by the temple was being auctioned by Tehsildar, Jaora in compliance of circular issued by Revenue Commissioner, Ujjain. It was alleged that the suit filed by Guru Balakdasji was numbered as Civil Suit No. 45-A/82 and was decided against the State/respondents on 23.2.89. It was alleged that previously in the land record the name of Guru Balakdasji was recorded as Pujari of the temple. It was alleged that the land which is owned by the appellant temple is measuring 12.080 hectare. Further case of appellants was that against the judgment dated 23.2.89 an appeal was filed by the respondents which was numbered as 32A/92 and was dismissed on 28.2.95. It was alleged that no further appeal was filed by the respondents, thus the judgment passed on 28.2.95 in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/92 attained finality. Further case of appellants was that respondents has removed the name of appellants from the revenue record as Pujari of the appellant temple. It was alleged that no further appeal was filed by the respondents, thus the judgment passed on 28.2.95 in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/92 attained finality. Further case of appellants was that respondents has removed the name of appellants from the revenue record as Pujari of the appellant temple. It was alleged that repeated applications were submitted, but none of them were taken into consideration, therefore, application was filed which was numbered as 45A-82/2000, wherein it was prayed that respondents be punished for non-compliance of the judgment passed in favour of appellants. Execution filed by the appellants was dismissed on 31.01.05 on the ground that in the earlier suit it was only auction which was stayed and since no relief was granted for not deleting the name of appellants, therefore, execution petition cannot be entertained. Further case of appellant, was that against the order dated 31.1.05 passed by Executing Court an appeal was filed which was numbered as 12-A/06 and was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 28.6.06 holding that the appeal is not maintainable. In the suit it was prayed that it be declared that the auction of respondent, in deleting the name of appellants without giving any notice is illegal and incorrect. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to enter the name of appellant as Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir, Piploda in the revenue record. 4. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein filing of earlier suit was not disputed. It was alleged that the name of Collector as Manager is recorded on the temple and the land. It was alleged that earlier also name of appellants was also recorded as Pujari, therefore, contention of the appellants that the name of appellants has been removed is not correct. It was alleged that the land in dispute is owned by the appellant temple. It was alleged that since the maintenance of all the public temples is under the superintending control of Collector, therefore, the name of Collector was recorded as Manager. It was alleged that in view of the earlier judgment passed by Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 45-A/82 the suit filed by the appellants is not maintainable in view of the provisions of res judicata. It was prayed that the suit filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. It was alleged that in view of the earlier judgment passed by Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 45-A/82 the suit filed by the appellants is not maintainable in view of the provisions of res judicata. It was prayed that the suit filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit, against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed, hence present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that undoubtedly the land in dispute belongs to Shri Ram Mandir which is appellant herein. It is submitted that since the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 was recorded as Pujari of the said temple, therefore, there was no justification on the part of respondents to delete the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 and to implead the name of Collector, Ratlam as Manager. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for respondents submit that in the revenue record the name of Shri Ram Mandir was recorded as Bhumi Swami and that position has not been disturbed in any manner. It is submitted that for the purpose of protection of the land as per circular issued by the State Government from time to time name of Collector, Ratlam has been recorded as Manager. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by appellants. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. 8. From perusal of the record it is evident that appellants have filed the revenue record, which is Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 for the year 2005-06 and 2002-2007. In the revenue record name of Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as Bhumi Swami and there is an endorsement in column No.2 to the effect that Mahant Balmukunddas, Urmiladas and Guru Mohandas Sadhu are Pujari. There is a remark in red ink to the effect that Manager, Collector Ratlam. P/4 and Ex. P/5 for the year 2005-06 and 2002-2007. In the revenue record name of Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as Bhumi Swami and there is an endorsement in column No.2 to the effect that Mahant Balmukunddas, Urmiladas and Guru Mohandas Sadhu are Pujari. There is a remark in red ink to the effect that Manager, Collector Ratlam. There is nothing on record to the effect that on what basis name of Collector has been recorded as Manager. No order of Tehsildar has been placed on record, whereby it was directed to record the name of Collector, Ratlam as Manager. The date on which the name of Collector, Ratlam was recorded as Manager is also not mentioned in Ex. P/4. Ex./6 in the judgment dated 23.2.89 passed in Civil Suit No. 45-A/82 wherein State was party and the decree was passed in favour of appellants to the effect that the suit land is owned by Shri Narsingh Mandir, Mawta and Shri Ram Mandir, Piploda. Permanent injunction was issued against respondents to the effect that respondents shall neither auction the suit land, nor shall take possession. Vide judgment dated 28.2.95 Ex. P/8 appeal filed by respondents against the judgment Ex. P/6 was dismissed. Apart from these documents appellants have examined Balmukund Das as PW/1. Respondents have not led any evidence, either documentary or oral. In the matter of Kanhaiyalal v. State of M.P 1985 MPWN 212 this Court has held that the land belonging to temple and not to a public trust, Collector or any other authority has no right to interfere. In the matter of, Kashi Bharti (d) Through L.Rs. v. State of M.P., 2009 RN 179 this Court has held that rights of pujari are heritable and proprietary. It is further held that he is entitled to continue as such in revenue record. In the matter of State of M.P v. Keshar Bai, 2009 RN 165 while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 248 of MPLRC this Court held that land of temple not proved to be Government land and provisions of Section 248 of MPLRC are not attracted as it has no application to the land of private temple. In the matter of State of M.P v. Keshar Bai, 2009 RN 165 while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 248 of MPLRC this Court held that land of temple not proved to be Government land and provisions of Section 248 of MPLRC are not attracted as it has no application to the land of private temple. In the matter of Mangidas v. State of M.P., 2009 RN 208 this Court held that right of pujari are heritable and proprietary and right of plaintiff as pujari continuing from forefather cannot be taken away by executive instructions. In the matter of Gokul v. Bale, 1999 RN 30 this Court held that change in Kharsra entries cannot be made without hearing the party concerned. In the matter of Devilal Pandya v. State of M.P., 1994 RN 423 this Court has held that construction of managing committee without providing hearing opportunity is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. In the matter of Sadashiv Giri v. Commissioner, Ujjain, reported in 1985 RN 317, wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that section 2, 4 and 5 of Public Trust Act, 1951 applies to public trusts and a private temple is not covered by this provision. It was also observed that Collector cannot manage private temples and land belonging to a private temple cannot be treated as Government land. It was also held that circular dated 12.4.74 issued by the State Govt. and 29.5.79 issued by the Revenue Commissioner relates to only public temples and not to private temples. It is also held that person claiming Bhumiswami right over the public temple cannot be evicted. It was also directed that contention of the State Govt. if such person to be a trespasser this question should be decided after giving opportunity to be heard and giving a definite finding. 9. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case from the evidence on record it is proved that the land in dispute was recorded as Bhumi Swami in the name of Shri Ram Mandir. Name of appellants Nos. 2 & 3 were also shown as Pujari. The name of Collector has been mentioned as Manager, but for that neither any explanation has been given by adducing evidence, nor the order is placed on record by which name of Collector was recorded as Manager. Name of appellants Nos. 2 & 3 were also shown as Pujari. The name of Collector has been mentioned as Manager, but for that neither any explanation has been given by adducing evidence, nor the order is placed on record by which name of Collector was recorded as Manager. It also appears that while the name of Collector was impleaded as Manager no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the position of law, this Court is of the opinion that there was no justification on the part of respondents in recording the name of Collector, Ratlam as Manager. In view of this appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. Substantial questions of law arc answered in favour of appellants and the judgment passed by the learned Courts below set aside with a direction to the respondents to delete the name of Collector as Manager from column No.2 of the land record and restore the entries as it was prior to inclusion of name of Collector as Manager. Since the appellant No. 1 is temple which is perpetual minor, therefore, it is made clear that appellant Nos. 2 & 3 who are claiming themselves to be Pujari will have no right title or interest in the suit property except to manage the temple and use the income of suit land for development and maintenance of temple for which a true and correct account shall be maintained by the appellants. With the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellants stand disposed of. No order as to costs.