# THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS v. PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR

- **Citation:** [2021] 7 S.C.R. 685
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-09-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, A. S. Bopanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-v-pujari-utthan-avam-kalyan-samiti-anr-35114
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Rights of Pujari - A writ
petition filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P.
Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 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 - The Single Judge
of the High Court allowed the writ petition - However, in the intracourt appeal, it was 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 as Pujari along with the name
of the deity - Before the Supreme Court, the respondents contended
that the Pujaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership)
rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions
- Held: The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the
deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the
task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land -
He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami - The Pujari does not
have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager
- Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of
Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all
rights including the right to sell or mortgage - Since the priest cannot
be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be
protected under any of the provisions of the Code - There is no
mandate in any of the judgments or any rule has been brought to
notice to hold that the name of Pujari or manager is required to be
mentioned in the revenue record - In the absence of any prohibition
either in the statute or in the rules, the executive instruction can be
issued to supplement the statute and the rules framed thereunder -
Such instructions do not contravene any of the provisions of the
Code or the rules - Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or
in excess of the authority vested in the State Government - The
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 685
685
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
order of the High Court cannot be sustained - The Circulars dated
21.3.1994 and 7.6.2008 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.
Dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal, the
Court
HELD: 1. Whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami
under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat
2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and as a consequence under the Code.
1.2 This question has already been considered by the courts
in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors., which
has further been affirmed by Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv
Ram and Others. The Law is clear on the distinction that the
Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in cultivation or a
government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands but
holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose
of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to man- age the
property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari
fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and
manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami.
The Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have
any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager.
Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of
Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all
rights including the right to sell or mortgage. [Para 20][704-H;
705-A-C]
1.3 Taking into consideration the past precedents, and the
fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given right to
manage the property of the temple, it is clear that that does not
elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in
cultivation). [Para 23][705-E-F]
2. Whether the priest is Inamdar or Maufidar within the
meaning of Section 158 (1)(b) of the Code.
2.1 Such provision contemplates that the rights of every
person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat
region i.e. area of erstwhile Gwalior and Holkar as

## Text

_Characters 0–39,854 of 55,188. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39854 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
685
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA JJ.]
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Rights of Pujari - A writ
petition filed by Association of Priests registered under the M.P.
Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 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 - The Single Judge
of the High Court allowed the writ petition - However, in the intracourt appeal, it was 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 as Pujari along with the name
of the deity - Before the Supreme Court, the respondents contended
that the Pujaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership)
rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions
- Held: The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the
deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the
task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land -
He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami - The Pujari does not
have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager
- Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of
Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all
rights including the right to sell or mortgage - Since the priest cannot
be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be
protected under any of the provisions of the Code - There is no
mandate in any of the judgments or any rule has been brought to
notice to hold that the name of Pujari or manager is required to be
mentioned in the revenue record - In the absence of any prohibition
either in the statute or in the rules, the executive instruction can be
issued to supplement the statute and the rules framed thereunder -
Such instructions do not contravene any of the provisions of the
Code or the rules - Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or
in excess of the authority vested in the State Government - The
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 685
685
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
order of the High Court cannot be sustained - The Circulars dated
21.3.1994 and 7.6.2008 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.
Dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal, the
Court
HELD: 1. Whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami
under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat
2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and as a consequence under the Code.
1.2 This question has already been considered by the courts
in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors., which
has further been affirmed by Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv
Ram and Others. The Law is clear on the distinction that the
Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in cultivation or a
government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands but
holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose
of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to man- age the
property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari
fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and
manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami.
The Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have
any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager.
Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of
Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all
rights including the right to sell or mortgage. [Para 20][704-H;
705-A-C]
1.3 Taking into consideration the past precedents, and the
fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given right to
manage the property of the temple, it is clear that that does not
elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in
cultivation). [Para 23][705-E-F]
2. Whether the priest is Inamdar or Maufidar within the
meaning of Section 158 (1)(b) of the Code.
2.1 Such provision contemplates that the rights of every
person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat
region i.e. area of erstwhile Gwalior and Holkar as a Pakka tenant
or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder shall be
protected as Bhumiswami. The priest does not fall in any of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
687
clauses as mentioned in Section 158 (1)(b) of the Code. The maufi
was granted to the property of temples from payment of land
revenue. Such maufi was not granted to a manager. 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. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Pancham Singh and
also of this Court in Kanchaniya, the priest cannot be treated to
be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of Madhya Bharat Land
Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) or
in terms of Gwalior Act. Since the priest cannot be treated to be
Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under
any of the provisions of the Code. [Para 24][705-F-H; 706-A-B]
3. Whether the State Government by way of executive
instructions can order the deletion of name of Pujari from the
revenue record and/or to insert the name of a Collector as
manager of the temple.
3.1 In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that even if temple
was being managed by the Pujari, his name is required to be
mentioned as Pujari along with name of deity. This Court does
not find any mandate in any of the judgments to hold that the
name of Pujari or man- ager is required to be mentioned in the
revenue record. [Para 25][706-C-D]
3.2 In terms of Section 108, 109 and 110 of the Code, Rules
had been framed initially as Appendix X. Form A has been
prescribed as per Rule 2. 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. Such Rules have been further
substituted on 20th December 1983, published in the Madhya
Pradesh Gazette. The Column 3 of such Form is to contain name
and address of the occupier, whereas Column 4 is required to
contain name of the tenant or sub-lessee of an occupancy tenant
of the Bhumiswami. Column 12 is meant for remarks. [Para
26][706-D-E]
3.3 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. The occupation of the land is also by the
deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the
priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier
as well. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that if the name of the
Pujari is recorded in the column No. 12 i.e. column of remarks, it
will not affect the rights of the Pujari so long as he is performing
his functions properly and cultivating the land or getting the land
cultivated through servants. Therefore, the name of the Pujari
cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of
ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remark's
column. [Para 27][707-D-F]
3.4 No rule has been brought to the notice that the name of
the manager has to be recorded in the land records. In the absence
of any prohibition either in the statute or in the rules, the
executive instruction can be issued to supplement the statute
and the rules framed thereunder. Such instructions do not
contravene any of the provisions of the Code or the rules.
Therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or in excess of the
authority vested in the State Government. [Para 28][707-F-G]
4. Another argument was raised that such circulars of the
State Government shall be applicable to the public temples and
not to the private temples. A bare reading of the circulars does
not make out such distinction. However, a temple in a house or
which is not open to the public cannot be treated to be a public
temple. However, it will be a question in each case whether it is
a public temple or a private temple which can be decided in the
appropriate proceedings. For the purpose of the present appeal,
we find that the circular is applicable to all temples unless a
particular temple is able to satisfy the competent forum of it being
a private temple. [Para 30][709-B-D]
M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v.
Mahant Suresh Das and Others (2020) 1 SCC 1 -
followed.
Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others
AIR 1992 SC 1239 : [1992] 2 SCR 670; Deoki Nandan
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
689
v. Murlidhar and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 133 : [1956] SCR
756 - relied on.
Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Thakur
Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another AIR 1970 SC
532 : [1970] 1 SCR 634 - referred to.
Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P 1995 Revenue Nirnaya
(RN) 235 ('Ghanshyamdas I); Sadashiv Giri & Ors. v.
Commissioner, Ujjain & Ors. 1985 RN 317; Shri
Krishna v. State of M.P. 2012 (4) MPLJ 466 -
disapprove.
Kashi Bhatti through LRs v. State of M.P. 2009 R.N.
179; State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas 1999 R.N. 25
('Ghanshyamdas II); Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas
Guru Ramdas & Ors. AIR 1972 MP 147; State of M.P.
and Others v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao 1999 RN 392
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 2 SCR 670
relied on
Para 9
(2020) 1 SCC 1
followed
Para 17
[1970] 1 SCR 634
referred to
Para 21
[1956] SCR 756
relied on
Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4850 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2016 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No.617 of 2014.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Samridhi Jain, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Divyakant Lahoti, Kartik Lahoti, Parikshit Ahuja, Ms. Praveena
Bisht, Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Ms. Shivangi Malhotra,
Advs. for the Respondents.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The order dated 14.06.2016 passed in an intra-court appeal by
the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is the subject
matter of challenge herein at the instance of State of Madhya Pradesh.
The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition 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.
2. The challenge in the writ petition 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. The said writ petition
was allowed on 20.11.2013 relying upon the judgments of the High Court
in Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P1 and Kashi Bhatti through LRs
v. State of M.P2. The learned Single Bench held that the circulars dated
12.11.1992 and 21.03.1994 were already quashed by the High Court in
the year 1995 and 1999 respectively and therefore there was no
justification on the part of the State Government to issue circular dated
07.06.2008 directing the Revenue Commissioner to follow the circular
dated 21.03.1994. Learned Single Bench held as under:
"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 Temple 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 Temple. To
protect the interest of Pujari's who are entitled to get the benefits
of the scheme which are being introduced by the Government for
the benefit of the agriculturist. To protect the interest of 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 07/06/08 (Annexure P/21) is quashed."
3. In an intra-court appeal against the aforesaid findings, the High
Court referred to a judgment of Division Bench in State of M.P. v.
Ghanshyamdas3, an order passed against the order in writ petition
1 1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Ghanshyamdas I)
2 2009 R.N. 179
3 1999 R.N. 25 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Ghanshyamdas II)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
691
reported as Ghanshyamdas I. The Court inter alia held that Pujaris
had 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 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 as Pujari along with the name of
the deity. The Court held as under:
"The learned Writ Court relying on the decision of the cases of
State of M.P. & others v. Ghanshyamdas & 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 21.03.1994, 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 bhoomiswami 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 the deity."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Before this Court, the argument of Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the preparation of revenue
records including as to what entry should be incorporated in such record
has been prescribed in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short
"the Code"). The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred
under the Code, had issued executive instructions to delete 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 in response
to the complaints received that Maufi land (land exempted from payment
of revenue) was being recorded in individual names and was being illegally
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
transferred. It was directed that Maufi was granted to a deity who was
the owner of the temple and the land appended was to be that of the
deity alone. Thereafter, another circular dated 12.04.1974 was issued
highlighting the issue that the land which belonged to the temple and not
covered under the Khasgi Trust was being misused by the Pujaris by
way of sale or mortgage. The Khasgi Trust was formed for the purpose
of the properties of Holkar family. Therefore, to save land which belongs
to the temple and not covered under the Khasgi Trust, in addition to the
name of Pujari, name of the Collector was to be recorded as manager in
the revenue record. The reference was made to Sections 108, 114 and
258 of the Code to support his arguments.
5. Mr. Lahoti, counsel of the respondents, submitted that the Pujaris
have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which
cannot be taken away by executive instructions. It was argued that in
terms of proviso to Section 57, the rights granted to the Pujaris have
been protected and would remain unaffected by the Code. In terms of
Section 158, every person, in respect of land held in the Madhya Bharat
region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional
holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy
Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950), confers Bhumiswami rights on
the pujari, which has further been protected by a conjoint reading of
Section 57 and Section 158 of the Code. The Madhya Bharat Land
Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) was
enacted after the merger of Gwalior and Holkar State in the year 1950,
prior to reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1956.
Mr. Lahoti also refers to 'Gwalior Act' to argue that such Act conferred
proprietary rights to the priest which were initially protected by the Madhya
Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of
1950) and later by virtue of Section 158 of the Code. The reliance was
placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in
Shri Krishna v. State of M.P.4. Mr. Lahoti relied upon Sections 57,
158 & 159 of the Code.
6. The provisions of the Code as are relevant for the present
order read as under:
4 2012 (4) MPLJ 466
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
"2. Definitions-
(1)
In this Code, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject
or context,
xxx
xxx
 xxx
(z-3) "unoccupied land" means the land in a village other than
the abadi or service land, or the land held by a Bhumiswami,
a tenant or a government lessee.
57.
State ownership in all lands-
(1)
All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby
declared that all such lands, including Standing and flowing
water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not,
and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of
the State Government:
Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as
otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect
any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into
force of this Code in any such property.
91A. Power to make ruleThe State Government may make rules for regulating
generally the conduct of a revenue survey or Settlement
under this Chapter.
108. Record of rights.- [(1)] A record-of-rights shall in
accordance with rules made in this behalf be prepared and
maintained for every village and such record shall include the
following particulars:-
(a)
the names of all Bhumiswamis together with survey
numbers or plot numbers held by them and their area,
irrigated or unirrigated;
(b)
the names of all occupancy tenants and Government lessees
together with survey numbers or plot numbers held by them
and their area irrigated or unirrigated;
(c)
the nature and extent of the respective interests of such
persons and the conditions or liabilities, if any, attaching
thereto;
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
(d)
the rent or land revenue, if any, payable by such persons;
and
(e)
such other particulars as may be prescribed.
[(2) The record-of-rights mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be
prepared during a [revenue survey] or whenever the State
Government may, by notification, so direct.]
114. Land records.- In addition to the map and Bhoo Adhikar
Pustikas, there shall be prepared for each village a khasra or field
book and such other land records as may be prescribed.
116. Disputes regarding entry in khasra or in any other land
records -
(1)
If any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the land
records prepared under section 114 in respect of matters
other than those referred to in section 108, he shall apply to
the Tahsildar for its corrections within one year of the date
of such entry.
(2)
The Tahsildar shall, after making such enquiry as he may
deem fit, pass necessary orders in the matter.
121. Power to make rules for land records -
The State Government may make rules for regulating the
preparation, maintenance and revision of land records
required for the purposes of this Code.
158. Bhumiswami- [(1)] Every person who at the time of coming
into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes
shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be
subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami
by or under this Code namely-
(a)
every person in respect of land held by him in the
Mahakoshal region in Bhumiswami or Bhumidhari rights in
accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955);
(b)
every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya
Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat
Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 (66 of 1950);
(c)
every person in respect of land held by him in the Bhopal
region as an occupant s defined in the Bhopal State Land
Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932);
160. Revocation of exemption from liability for land
revenue-
(1)
Every Muafi of Inam land, wherever situate, which was
heretofore exempted from payment of the whole or part of
the land revenue by a special grant from the Government
or under the provisions of any law for the time being in
force or in pursuance of any other instrument shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any such grant, law
or instrument be liable from the commencement of the
revenue year next following the coming into force of this
Code, to the payment of full land revenue assessable thereon.
(2)
Where any such Muafi or Inam land is held for the
maintenance or upkeep of any public religious or charitable
institution, the State Government may, on the application of
such institution, in the prescribed form [and made within
such time as may be prescribed] grant to it such annuity
not exceeding the amount of the exemption from land
revenue enjoyed by it, as may be considered reasonable
for the proper maintenance or upkeep of such institution or
for the continuance of service rendered by it.
258. General rule making power.-
(1)
The State Government may make rules generally for the
purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Code.
(2)
In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing powers such rules may provide forxxx
xxx
xxx
(xii)
the regulation of the conduct of revenue survey or
settlement under section 91-A;
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
(xxii)
the prescription of the form of, and the additional
particulars to be entered in the papers to be included
in the record of rights under section 108;
(xxv)
(a) prescription of other land records under section
114(1),
(b) prescription of fee on the payment of which
Rasid Bahi shall be provided under section 114 (2)
and the prescription of entries which it shall contain;
(xxvii) preparation and maintenance and revision of land
records under section 121"
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that
there is lack of clarity in the High Court in regard to the legal
jurisprudence. Different judgments have been referred to in respect of
rights of the priests as to whether they can be treated as Bhumiswami
or if they only hold the temple land for the purpose of management of
the property of the temple, which actually vests with the deity.
8. One of the earliest judgments on the right of a priest was
rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported
as Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors.5. Section
13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran Jujve Araji, Samwat 19916 was examined
as to the remedy of ejectment of a pujari who claimed status of Mourushi
Kashtakar as under Section 248 (1) of the Code or by way of a civil suit.
It was held that a Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in
cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the Maufi
lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the
purpose of management. The High Court held as under:
"7. ...... The Maufi lands all the while belonged to the
Government. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar
Mourusi or a Government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the
maufi lands, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf
Department for purposes of management.
xx
xx
xx
12. On a plain reading, the definition excludes a Pujari. The former
Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the maufi
5 AIR 1972 MP 14
6 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Gwalior Act'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
land, but was merely holding them on behalf of Aukaf Department
for purposes of management. Under the 2nd Proviso to Section
365 of the Qanoon Mai, Gwalior, he had no right of transfer.
xx
xx
xx
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the former Pujari had no
other status than that of a manager of the lands on behalf of the
Aukaf Department. While it is accepted before us that the former
Pujari had no right of transfer by mortgage or sale, it is urged that
there was no restriction on sub-letting. It is also urged that the
terms "Mourushi Kashtakar" and "Dakhilkar Kashtakar Bila
Lagani" were synonymous and that, as every Mourushi Kashtakar
had the right to sub-let, it necessarily follows that a Dakhilkar
Kashtakar Bila Lagani had also a similar right. We are unable to
agree with this line of reasoning. It would be repugnant to the
nature of the grant itself to clothe such a person with a right of
transfer of any kind. The whole purpose of the grant, which was
for the upkeep of the temple, would be frustrated if the maufi
lands were allowed to be sublet by the Pujari and new rights created
in favour of a stranger.
17. Where a grant of land is made in consideration for service to
be rendered by a grantee, in lieu of wages, it is an implied condition
of the grant that if the services are not performed or are not
required, the grant can be resumed. The Parwana expressely stated
that the grant in favour of the former Pujari was resumable for
breach of any of the conditions set out therein, or upon his death
or removal. The death of the former Pujari was, in the instant
case, the terminal point. That being so, the grant lapsed with his
death. As the grant created no interest in favour of the former
Pujari, whatever rights the petitioners father, Thakur
Murlidnarsingh had, also lapsed and he became a rank trespasser."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. This Court in a judgment reported as Mst Kanchaniya and
Others v. Shiv Ram and Others7 considered the Gwalior Act as well
as the Code. The decision of the High Court in Pancham Singh was
approved, and it was held as under:
7 AIR 1992 SC 1239
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
"15. Shri Shiv Dayal has submitted that the learned Judges of the
Division Bench of the High Court were in error in holding that a
Pujari was not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the maufi land and that
the said finding is contrary to the language of Section 13 of Kawaid
Maufidaran wherein it is clearly stated that the Pujari would have
the rights of a Kashtakar Mourushi. According to Shri Shiv Dayal
the only limitation on the rights of the Pujari as a Kashtakar
Mourushi was that contained in Section 265 of the Qanoon Mal
whereby he was precluded from selling or mortgaging the maufi
lands but there was no provision restricting his right to create a
lease for cultivation of the lands. We are unable to agree. Although
under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the right of a Kashtakar
Mourushi have been conferred on the Pujari and under 265 of the
Qanoon Mal, the restriction on his right was with regard to sale
and mortgage only but it cannot be ignored that under Section 13
of Kawaid Maufidaran the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi which
have been conferred on the Pujari is subject to the overriding
condition that in case he does not perform his duties properly, he
can be removed and another Pujari can be appointed and a patta
could be issued in his favour. This is also borne out by definition of
the expression 'Kashtakar Mourushi' in Section 2(29) of the
Qanoon Mal which imposes the condition that the Aukaf
Department would be entitled to dispossess, without an order of
the court, the Pujari who obtains the right of Kashtakar Mourushi
on the basis of Kawaid Maufidaran and who does not render his
services properly. The matter is further made clear by the
prescribed form of the Parwana which is issued to the Pujari
wherein it is also clearly mentioned that Pujari does not have any
right in the land and his status is that of a manager and that he
could get the land cultivated either himself or through others so
that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards worship
and upkeep of the temple and that the grant would be resumed
for breach of any of the conditions or upon the death of the former
Pujari. In other words, the rights of the Pujari do not stand on the
same footing as those of a Kashtakar Mourushi in the ordinary
sense who was entitled to all rights including the right to sell or
mortgage. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view of the
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Panchamsingh case that a Pujari had no other status than that of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
the manager functioning under the control of the Aukaf Department
and he had no right to transfer, either by way of sale or mortgage
or by lease, the land entrusted to him. In that view of the matter,
it must be held that the patta granted in favour of Malkhan by
Vasudev Rao, father of respondent 1, was not valid and did not
confers any right or interest on Malkhan in the land covered by
the said patta." (Emphasis Supplied)
10. This Court further held that temple land does not fall in any of
the excepted categories in Section 2(z-3), therefore, it was unoccupied
land and set apart for a public purpose, i.e., for the upkeep of the temple.
It was thus held that Patta granted in favour of Malkhan to cultivate the
land in dispute came to an end on the death of Malkhan and the possession
of the appellant over the land in dispute as legal heirs of Malkhan cannot
be said to be authorised by respondent No.1.
"19. The land in dispute does not fall in any of the excepted
categories mentioned in Section 2(z-3). It must, therefore, be held
to be unoccupied land. Since it was set apart for a public purpose,
viz., for the upkeep of temple, it can be said to be land set apart
for a special purpose under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section
237 of the Code. What has to be seen is whether the possession
of Malkhan of the same was unauthorised. It has been urged on
behalf of the appellants that the possession of Malkhan could not
be said to be unauthorised on the date of the filing of the application
by Respondent 1 in view of the fact that Vasudev Rao, father of
Respondent 1, had granted a patta permitting Malkhan to cultivate
the land during his (Malkhan's) lifetime and after the death of
Vasudev Rao, Respondent 1 had also granted a patta permitting
Malkhan to continue in cultivation of the land in dispute and had
been receiving Rs 100 annually as rent from Malkhan. ..........In
view of the death of Malkhan during the pendency of the writ
petition in the High Court, the question whether Respondent 1 has
granted a patta permitting Malkhan to cultivate the land in dispute
during his lifetime, does not survive because even if it is held that
the patta granted in favour of Malkhan by Respondent 1 permitted
Malkhan to cultivate the land in dispute during his lifetime, the
said authority under which Malkhan was in possession of the
disputed land came to an end on the death of Malkhan and the
possession of the appellants over the land in dispute after the
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
death of Malkhan cannot be said to be authorised by Respondent
1."
11. A circular was issued on 28.5.1979 regarding the Devesthani
land in respect to control and management of the land attached to the
temples, in accordance with the manner mentioned in the circular. In the
said circular, there was a restriction that the agricultural land owned by
religious institutions should not be leased out for a period of more than 3
years. The priests were allowed to lease up to first 10 acres of land for
self-cultivation for maintenance and for management of temple without
any auction and without any lease rent. Another 10 acres could be given
to the Pujari for his self-agricultural purposes but on payment of lease
rent. Such rent was to be deposited in the name of the deity and could be
used for the maintenance of the temple. The remaining land could be
leased by auction.
12. The policy of auction was challenged by way of a writ petition.
The said writ petition was allowed. The order passed by learned Single
Judge was challenged in appeal in a judgment reported as State of M.P.
and others v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao8. The Bench relied upon the
earlier Division Bench judgment reported as Ghanshyamdas II.
However, while referring to the Gwalior Act, the Court held as under:
"13. We are of the considered opinion that the provisions contained
in Regulation 13 clearly envisaged the continuance of the Muafi
and the rights vesting in the deity in respect of its properties
including the agricultural holdings till the vesting of the ownership
thereof in the State under the Management of its department of
"Aukaf" relating to 'Devasthan'. It is obvious, therefore, that so
long as the rights of Muafidar were not extinguished vesting the
properties including the agricultural holdings in the State and the
revenue records were corrected showing the same as 'Milkiat
Sarkar' under the management of department of Aukaf relating
to Devasthan there could be no occasion for interfering in the
management of the holding/land vesting in the Deity/Devasthan
in any manner including the grant of temporary leases for the
purpose of cultivation taking recourse to auction treating the
holdings of the deity as 'Milkiat Sarkar' even though none of the
conditions contemplated under Regulation 13 stood satisfied."
8 1999 RN 392
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
13. The Court held that, with respect to the State's right to auction
property of the temple, once the land is vested with the deity/temple, the
State cannot have a right to auction the property of the temple.
14. In Ghanshyamdas I, the learned Single Bench was not
apprised of the judgments of the Division Bench in Pancham Singh or
of this Court in Kanchaniya, and the same are not referred in the
judgment. The Single Bench thus held that the proprietary rights conferred
on a pujari could not be brought to an end by an executive instruction.
The said judgment was partly overruled in Ghanshyamdas II.
15. The circular dated 12.11.1992 was issued wherein the name
of the Collector was directed to be recorded as a manager whereas the
name of the Pujari of the concerned Devasthan was to be recorded in
Column No. 12. The said circular was under consideration before the
Division Bench in Ghanshyamdas II. It was held 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 also perform the daily rituals. They do not
acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple. The Court held
as under:-
"13. The rights of Pujari have been considered in the case of
Pancham Singh and Kanchaniya (supra) and a bare perusal of
Regulation 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 daily rituals. They
do not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple.
14. In the case of Pancham Singh (supra), it is held that the Pujaris
have no right to alienate the property of the temple in any manner.
Thus the Regulations 12 and 13 of the Regulations are plain and
simple and must receive its legal meaning. The Pujari has no other
status than that of a manager. He could get the land cultivated
either himself or through servants, but he had no right to alienate
them lands in any manner. It cast upon him a duty to keep the land
under cultivation so that the income derived therefrom could be
applied towards Pooja and upkeep of the temple. All the Muafi
lands belong to the Government. Pujaris not Kashtkar Mourushi
of Government lossee or even the tenants of the Muafi lands but
were merely holding the land either on behalf of the Aukuf
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. PUJARI UTTHAN
AVAM KALYAN SAMITI & ANR. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Department or on behalf of the deity of the temple for the
management of the temple. Under regulations 12 and 13 of the
Regulations, Pujaris do not have the absolute right 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 proprietary 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 inststruction 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 properly 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. Therefore, recording of their name is 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 directions is bad in law."
16. A circular dated 21.03.1994 was issued wherein it was directed
that the name of the Pujari should not be recorded in any of the column
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
of the Panchnama (revenue record). The Collector was directed to
maintain a separate register for maintaining the records of the priest.
The High Court in Shri Krishna held that all those persons who were
granted land or were recognised as Inamdar (in the erstwhile Indore
State) for religious services rendered by them as Pujari have been
recognised as Bhumiswami under the Code. The Pujaris were holding
land for rendering religious services; therefore, a right had been created
in their favour which could not be withdrawn by an executive instruction.
The Court held as under:
"5A.