CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Temple – In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land :SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


SEPTEMBER 6, 2021 

The writ petition was filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973. Such society has 251 members in the Districts of Dhar, Indore, Ratlam, Shajapur, Ujjain, Jhabua etc. The challenge was to quash the circulars dated 21.03.1994 and 07.06.2008 whereby the names of Pujari were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record. Pujaris 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 along with the name of the deity. The State of Maharashtra deleted the names of Pujari from the revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris. The Khasgi Trust was formed for the purpose of the properties of Holkar family and not land belonging to the temple. The Pujaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions. The reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Shri Krishna v. State of M.P. Priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158(1)(b) of the Gwalior Code. Even Inam granted by the Jagirdar or the ruler to a priest is only to manage the property of the temple and not confer ownership right on the priest. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that even if temple was being managed by Pujari, his name is required to be. along with name of deity. In terms of Section 108, 109 and 110 of the Code, Rules had been framed initially as Appendix X. Later such Rules were substituted by another Rules published on 15.5.1964 and Form I was prescribed to maintain the records of the rights. The Collector of Pembrokeshire has published a set of rules for the preparation of the Khasra (village register) for each village in his circle. The khasra will be written up in the field by the Patwari after local enquiry and actual inspections. A separate entry shall be made for every plot, and every plot whether cultivated or not. The Writ petition is thus dismissed and the appeal is allowed. 

The STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 

VS  

PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. 

 

Latest Legal News