Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 321 (MP)

Shreeram Thakur Ji Mandir v. State of M. P.

2014-03-24

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER Gangele J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs : “(i) That, the respondent may be directed not to demolish the property belonging to the petitioner trust. (ii) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, any other relief, which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner may also be granted in the interest of justice. (iv) That, the cost of this petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. There is a temple named as Shri Ram Thakur Mandir Certain lands of No.249, 250, 251, 252, 266, 267, 290, 291 and 292 total area 19 bigha 19 biswa is attached with the temple. It is recorded as muafi land. 3. In the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No.4714/2012 (Akhil Bhartiya Shatriya Mahasabha v. State of M.P. and others), large number of documents have been filed and after perusal of the documents, this Court vide order of even date recorded a finding in regard to nature of the land, which is attached with the temple :- “6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted fact that there is a temple named as Shri Ram Thakur Mandir for a quite long time. The land is attached with the temple. It is recorded as muafi aukaf Land. In the revenue record, ownership is mentioned of Aukaf Department. It is clear from the revenue records that the land area 19 bigha 19 biswa is part and parcel of the temple. It was attached with the temple. There is no history provided either by the respondents or the petitioner that who had granted the land to the temple and when the temple was constructed, however, from the khasra entries it is clear that the temple has been from quite a long time. Respondent No.7 has filed khasra entries from samvat 1978-84. In the aforesaid khasra panchshala, the land has been mentioned as Shri Ram Thakur ji Banke and the name of the pujari has also been mentioned. The State itself admitted in the return that the land has been recorded muafi land. In the State time, muafi word was used for the land, which was given by the State for the particular purpose. It had so many purposes. 7. The State itself admitted in the return that the land has been recorded muafi land. In the State time, muafi word was used for the land, which was given by the State for the particular purpose. It had so many purposes. 7. During the State time, the rules named as Kavaad Muafidaran Jujbe Aaraji, Samvat 1969 were in force. Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules defines muafi land, which is as under :- **dk;nk 8 & eqvkfQ;kr dh vDlke gLc tSy gS %& 1- /kjeknk; ;kuh [kSjkrh 2- ukudkj ;kuh bukeh 3- ckxkr 4- nsoLFkkuh o ihjLFkkuh 5- pkdjkuk ** 8. In accordance with the aforesaid rule, the State used to grant the land as muafi land to a particular religious place for the purpose of upkeep of the aforesaid place. The land is recorded as muafi land. The land was attached with the temple. 9. This Court in Idol Ganeshji v. J.M.Anand reported in 1983 JLJ 248 has held as under in regard to legal right of a deity installed in the temple :- “9. Now building of a temple itself is a religious purpose. When a deity is installed in a temple and is regularly worshiped, it becomes a religious endowment, the deity becomes a juristic person and the manager occupies the same position as a Shebait. The deity is looked upon as a kind of human entity. A Hindu idol has always been held to be a juristic person and it is in this idol that the dedicated property, vests. This juristic personality in the idol is a mere creation of law and has its origin in a desire for doing justice and providing centres for juristic relations. The Privy Council in Pramotha v. Pradyumna (L.R.521-A 245) observed that “it has juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. The juridical person in the idol is not the material image and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated and vivified by the Pran-Pratishtha ceremony. It is not also correct that the Supreme-being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of the dedicated property. The idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests. It is not also correct that the Supreme-being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of the dedicated property. The idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests. “Deity, however is the owner of the dedicated property not in the primary but in the secondary sense, inasmuch as it cannot hold or enjoy property like a man. The fictitious ownership which is imputed to the deity is determined by the express intentions of the founder, the debuttar property cannot be applied or used for any purpose other than that indicated by the founder. Thus, in this sense, the deity as owner represents nothing else but the intention of the founder. [ See : H.K.Mukherjea’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, Fourth Edition, pp. 38 and 39).” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482 has held as under in regard to protection and safeguarding of properties :- “10.The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/achakas/shebaits/ employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership of tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of “fences eating the crops” should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of Courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.” 11. From the revenue record and the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the land is a part and parcel of the temple. At present there is a tendency to grab the land, which is attached with the temple because value of the land has been increased tremendously. In earlier days, the people had faith in deity and large area of the land was attached with the temple for the purpose of maintenance of the temple. At present there is a tendency to grab the land, which is attached with the temple because value of the land has been increased tremendously. In earlier days, the people had faith in deity and large area of the land was attached with the temple for the purpose of maintenance of the temple. At that time, the value of the land had no meaning and the people and the state used to donate the land generously. The Collector is the Manager of the temple. A public trust was also registered in the name of Shri Ram Thakur Ji Mandir Dharmik as Charitable Trust by the Registrar Public Trust vide order dated 31.5.2013 and the land has been mentioned as part and parcel of the temple Shri Ram Thakur Mandir. In such circumstances, it could not be said that any person has made any encroachment on the land. It is the duty of the authorities and the Collector to up keep the temple and also provide assistance to the trust so the temple could be managed and any encroachment on the land could be prevented. The Collector has already requested vide its letter for allotment of the land in favour of respondent No.7. Admittedly, some temple was constructed over the land. Hence, it could not be said that the respondent No.7 has made any encroachment over the land.” 4. The petitioner trust was registered as public trust comprising the temple and the lands. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the state authorities be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. 5. The State in its reply pleaded that the land attached with the temple is of the ownership of the government. It is admitted in the reply that it is a muafi land as recorded in the revenue papers. It is further submitted that the petitioner trust submitted an application to the Collector for allotment of the land for the religious activities and the Collector vide letter dated 28.9.2012 requested the government to pass appropriate order. Earlier the land was notified as part and parcel of Shatabdipuram scheme, however, subsequently certain area of the lands was de-notified. 6. This Court has already recorded a finding that the land is the part and parcel of the temple and the temple is a public temple. The Collector has been recorded as Manager of the temple. Earlier the land was notified as part and parcel of Shatabdipuram scheme, however, subsequently certain area of the lands was de-notified. 6. This Court has already recorded a finding that the land is the part and parcel of the temple and the temple is a public temple. The Collector has been recorded as Manager of the temple. When the land was attached with the temple for the purpose of maintenance of the temple, it has to be used for the aforesaid purpose. Earlier the temple was constructed and that has been demolished by the district administration, but in our opinion, the land is a muafi land and it is a part and parcel of the temple. The Collector has already recommended for allotment of land in favour of the petitioner trust. 7. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the property of the trust be not demolished and the trust be not dispossessed from the land. It is further directed that the trust be permitted to carry out the religious activities. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.