The name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well.-SC
SEPTEMBER 6, 2021
Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds order deleting names of Pujari from revenue records. Pujaris have no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have rights only with respect to either cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the first circular issued by the State on 04.08.1969.
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. The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity. He cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami in the ordinary sense. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi.
Priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158(1)(b) of the Code. Priest cannot be treated to be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that even if temple was being managed by Pujari, his name is required to be. Column 3 of such Form is to contain name and address of the occupier. Column 4 required to contain tenant or sub-lessee of an occupancy tenant of the Bhumiswami.
No rule has been brought to the notice that the name of the manager has to be recorded in the land records. Circulars dated 21.3.1994 and 7.6.2008 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The Writ petition is dismissed and the appeal is allowed
The STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
VERSUS
PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.
