ORDER Jaiswal, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against order dated 20.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.9043/2013, whereby learned writ Court has quashed order/memorandum dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21) and directed the State Government to mention name of Pujari in revenue records and further direction to legislate law to avoid repeated litigation. 2. Last two paragraphs of the order are relevant, which read, as under:- “Keeping in view that circular dated 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 were quashed by this Court, therefore there was no justification on the part of State Government to advice the Revenue Commissioner, Ujjain to follow the circular dated 21.3.1994. In fact, to issue such type of directions amounts to contempt of Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The revenue entries are the record of rights which are being maintained under section 110 of MPLRC, 1959. As per clause 5 of land record manuals in column No.3 of Khasra entries deals with name of occupier. Column No.4 deals with name of Bhumiswami or lessees or his representatives while column No.12 deals with remarks. Undisputedly, the land which is owned by the Trust, the name of the deity/Temple or Trust as the case may be, is required to be mentioned in column No.3. If the Temple is managed by the Pujari then keeping in view the law laid down by this Court from time to time his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of deity. It appears that the apprehension of the State Government is based on the past experience wherein Pujaris have misused their position and valuable property of the Temple was transferred for negligible amount, therefore to protect the interest of the deity, Temple or Trust as the case may be, in case of properties are managed by the Trust on behalf of the deity or Temple, the name of the Trust be mentioned. If the name of Pujari was mentioned in the revenue record on 12.11.1992 when the order Annexure P-11 was issued, then only his name shall be mentioned as Pujari in Column No.3 below the name of deity with a remark in red ink to the effect that Pujari has no right to transfer or to create any charge over the land in any manner. The name of Collector is being mentioned as manager. The name of Collector is being mentioned as manager. It is true that by mentioning the name of Collector as manager, properties owned by the Temples were saved, but at the same time the properties could not be managed properly as it is not expected from the Collector to manage the properties of the Temples. To protect the interest of the Temples and also to protect the interest of Pujaris who are entitled to get the benefits of the scheme which are being introduced by the Government for the benefits of the agriculturist. To protect the interest of Temples/deities, Government should take appropriate steps by making the law in that regard by suitable legislation as the problem is lying in the Court in number of cases for last 30 years. In result the impugned order dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21) is quashed.” 3. The respondents/petitioners – a registered society is All India Organization having Pujaris as its Members. They are managing the affairs of private temples, who are serving idol established and installed in such private temples and are doing Puja-Archana also. 4. They challenged the circular/order/memorandum dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-21). 5. Initially on 12.11.1964 (Annexure P-7) a circular was issued by the State Government. Thereafter, circular dated 12.4.1974 (Annexure P/9) was issued. The same was challenged by filing Miscellaneous Petition No.187/1979 on the ground that private temples were not covered by the said circular and land belonging to private temples cannot be treated as Government Land. The aforesaid circular relates to temples of public trust and not of private temples. A Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, after appreciating the arguments of the parties, allowed the miscellaneous petition and held that memorandum dated 12.4.1974 (Annexure P-9) only applies to the property of temples, which are not private trusts and according to the petitioners therein, the Ganpati Temple is a private trust. Paragraphs No.9 and 12 of judgment in the case of Sadashiv Giri and others v. Commissioner, Ujjain and others, reported in 1985 RN 317, are relevant which read, as under : - “9. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Memo No.745/3693/VIII/73 dated 12.4.1974 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Under Secretary, Survey and Settlement Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, is unauthorised and invalid. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Memo No.745/3693/VIII/73 dated 12.4.1974 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Under Secretary, Survey and Settlement Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, is unauthorised and invalid. By the said memo, the State Government has instructed all the Collectors that the name of the Collector should also be entered along with the name of the Pujari in the khasra of the lands belonging to the temple, which are not Private trusts with a view to save the temple property from being disposed of unauthorisedly and to properly manage the same. This was done because complaints were received that the Pujaris of such temples were disposing such property unauthorisedly. It is difficult to appreciate how this memo can be challenged by the petitioners. This memo only applies to the property of the temples, which are not private trusts and according to the petitioners, the Ganpati temple is a private trust. If that be so, regarding which we express no opinion, the said memo does not affect the property belonging to the Ganpati temple. 12. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the proclamation of auction No.134/B-121/78-79 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent No.3 is quashed and the respondents are directed not to proceed to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question otherwise then in due course of law. This order shall not, in any way, preclude the respondents to proceed with in the matter, if so advised, in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners, after verification.” 6. The State Government again issued memo/order dated 12.11.1992. The same was the subject matter in Letters Patent Appeal No.34/1994 (Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh), reported in 2013 RN 215 ; a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.7.1995 quashed the circular by holding that by executive instructions, name of Pujari cannot be deleted from the revenue records and name of Collector of the District as Manager of the temple cannot be added. It is also held that as per section 95 of the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1931, provisions of section 64 of Land Revenue Code, 1950 (Madhya Bharat) and section 158 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Pujari of the temple has been recognized as Inamdar for rendering religious services and long possession and recorded name in revenue records as Bhumiswami or Manager has definitely created as a right, but without notice, inquiry and providing hearing opportunity, by executive instructions, deletion of name of Pujari and adding name of Collector as Manager of temple is arbitrary. Paragraphs 5-A and 7 of the judgment in the case of Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2013 RN 215 ], are relevant; which read, as under : - “5-A. From the discussion above, it is evident that all those persons who were granted land or were recognised as Inamdar (in the erstwhile Indore State) for the religious services rendered by them as Pujari of the Temple have been recognised to be a Bhoomiswami under the Code and their names appeared as such in Revenue Records. Since they were holding land for rendering religious services as Pujari of the Temple and the land was granted specifically for that purpose, the name of the Collector as Manager along with these pujaris was directed to be shown. This long possession and recording of their names in revenue records as Bhumiswami or Managers has definitely created a right in their favour. It is an established principle of law that if any right has been vested in a person by certain statutory provisions, the same cannot be withdrawn by an executive instruction. Even if a person is required to be deprived of his vested right in a property, a legal procedure for the same will have to be adopted. If the State Government of M.P. feels that the recording of name of such persons as Bhumiswami is non-est, then too it will have to give a notice to the person and an opportunity of hearing and after making due enquiry followed by a reasoned order (if it is found as such), the order for modification, corrections and change in the record can be done. 7. As a result, all these appeals succeed. 7. As a result, all these appeals succeed. The Executive Order Annexure P-5 dated 18.11.1992 whereby a direction for removal of names of Pujaris from revenue records has been issued, is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.” 7. After quashment of 1992 circular, third circular was issued by the State Government on 21.3.1994 (Annexure P-14). This was also challenged before the learned writ Court in the case of Ghanshyam Das and others v. State of M.P. and others and learned writ Court by order dated 17.2.1995 quashed the aforesaid circular by allowing miscellaneous petition (see 1995 RN 235). The aforesaid order of the learned writ Court was challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.21/1996 before the Division Bench. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 3.11.1998, reported in 1999 RN 25, dismissed the LPA filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and upheld the order of the learned writ Court by giving following reasons; paragraphs No.8, 13 and 22 to 28 are relevant, which read, as under : - “8. In the Regulations, there are two types of Muafis, namely, 'Sanad-Kamil' and 'Sanad-Nakis'. “Sanad Kamil” is the grant by the ex-ruler of Gwalior State for religious purpose, and “Sanad Nakis” is treated to be a defective grant and not granted by the Government of Scindia. Muafi was of five types, namely, Dharmada, Nankar, Bagat, Devsthani and Chakrana. Regulation No.12 relates to Devsthani Muafi of “Sanad Kamil'. The condition was that Muafi will be recorded in the name of Devsthan or Peersthan i.e. in the name of temple or its deity. The Pujari's name will be recorded as Muafidar on the condition that he is competent to perform the functions of Pujari, his nearest heir who is competent to perform the functions of Pujari shall be nominated as Pujari. If on the death of Pujari his heir is minor then till he attains majority and is competent to perform the functions of Pujari, and other competent person shall be appointed to perform the functions of Pujari. 13. The rights of Pujari have been considered in the case of Pancham Singh and Kanchaniya (supra), and a bare perusal of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Regulations indicates that the Pujaris have no right to alienate the properties of the temple. 13. The rights of Pujari have been considered in the case of Pancham Singh and Kanchaniya (supra), and a bare perusal of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Regulations indicates 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 temple and its deity rituals. They do not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple. 22. A qualification was prescribed according to Circular No.2 of Samvat 1976 by the Legislative Department that Pujaris who passed the process for performing worship shall only be competent to become a Pujari. But those who have not passed such examination, then it was held that only Ved Pathi, Dashgranthi, Scholars possessed with the knowledge of Shastra and able to perform the rites of thread ceremony (Yaghyopaveet) and marriage are competent to perform the religious worship can only claim rights of inheritance. 23. From a bare reading of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Regulations, it is apparent that the Pujari's right of inheritance is subject to his qualification and is not automatic. 24. No Pujari or trustee or manager can claim the title of religious property. The property always belongs to the temple i.e. deity. 25. In the case of Rameshchandra v. Janki Ballabhji [( AIR 1970 SC 532 )], it is held that the Pujari claiming proprietory rights amounts to mismanagement and is not fit to remain in possession or to continue as Pujari. Therefore, the persons claiming title over the property of the deity are not liable to continue as Pujari. 26. The executive instruction issued by the Government is in the interest of the deity and to avoid wastage or misuse of the property of the temple. Even if the name of Pujari is recorded in column No.12 of the Khasra it will not affect the rights of Pujari so long as he is performing his functions property and cultivating the land or getting the land cultivated through servants. 27. It is, therefore, held that placing the name of Pujari in column No.12 of the Khasra does not affect the rights of Pujari. As discussed above and held in the cases of Kanchaniya and Pancham Singh (supra), the Pujaris do not have any right in the property of temple. 27. It is, therefore, held that placing the name of Pujari in column No.12 of the Khasra does not affect the rights of Pujari. As discussed above and held in the cases of Kanchaniya and Pancham Singh (supra), the Pujaris do not have any right in the property of temple. Therefore, recording of their name in column No.12 will not affect their rights since their rights are not affected as measures have been taken by the Government for the safety of the temple's property, which cannot be faulted with. The Government have always the right to issue directions or preparing norms for preserving the property of deity. The judgment of the learned single Bench is contrary to the judgment of Kanchaniya's case (supra). 28. However, the directions of the State Government that the name of Pujari be deleted from all the columns of Khasra and should not be recorded anywhere is quashed, as the learned Advocate General frankly conceded that direction is bad in law.” 8. Division Bench has held that Pujaris have no right to alienate the properties of temple. They have either to cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. The right of inheritance of Pujari is subject to his competence to work as Pujari. This is not automatic. Pujari claiming right of proprietorship is not eligible to work as Pujari. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwalior) relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Kanchaniya v. Sheoram [1992 RN 194 (SC)= AIR 1992 SC 1239 ], and decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas [1971 RN 359= AIR 1972 MP 14 ], directed the State Government that name of Pujari be deleted from the columns of Khasra and should not be recorded anywhere, because the same is bad in law. 9. The State of Madhya Pradesh is not satisfied with the quashment of three circulars i.e. circulars dated 12.4.1974, 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994, issued another circular dated 7.6.2008, which is subject matter of the present writ appeal. 10. 9. The State of Madhya Pradesh is not satisfied with the quashment of three circulars i.e. circulars dated 12.4.1974, 12.11.1992 and 21.3.1994, issued another circular dated 7.6.2008, which is subject matter of the present writ appeal. 10. The learned writ Court relying on the decision of the cases of State of M.P. and others v. Ghanshyamdas and others v. (supra), Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (supra) and Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas (supra), has held that right of Pujaris continued from their forefather, cannot be taken away by executive instructions. There was no justification on the part of the State Government to advice to Revenue Commissioner to follow circular dated 21.3.1994, when the same was quashed. It is not in dispute that as per Clause 5 of the Land Records Manual in Column No.3 of Khasra Entries deals with the name of occupier; Column No.4 deals with name of bhumiswami or lessees or his representatives while Column No.12 deals with the remarks. Undisputedly, the land, which is owned by the temple or deity or the land owned by temple or by the trust, name of the deity/temple or trust, as the case may be, is required to be mentioned in Column No.3. If the temple is managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down by this Court from time to time, his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of deity. 11. The arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State of Madhya Pradesh has received a number of complaints that the Pujari whose name has been recorded in Khasra Entry, on the basis of the aforesaid Entries, they have alienated the property of the temple and to protect the interest of the property of the temple, circular dated 7.6.2008 has been issued. It is also pointed out that as per past experience of the State Government, Pujaris have misused their position and valuable property of the temple was transferred for negligible market price. 12. The law is well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of State of M.P. and others v. Ghanshyamdas and others (supra). The apex Court also in the case of Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (supra), held that Pujaris are not 'Kashtkar-Mourusi' on the basis of regulations and they can be removed if they do not render their services properly. The apex Court also in the case of Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (supra), held that Pujaris are not 'Kashtkar-Mourusi' on the basis of regulations and they can be removed if they do not render their services properly. A Division Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition, directed that the Government has always the right to issue directions or preparing norms for preserving the property of deity. Similar direction was issued earlier in the year 1985 as well as in 1995, when similar circular issued by the State Government was quashed. 13. On due consideration of the aforesaid and the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (supra), and a Division Bench of this Court in the cases of State of M.P. and others v. Ghanshyamdas and others (supra), no case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court, as prayed for, is made out. 14. Writ Appeal No.617/2014 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.