Temple priest is only servant of deity, can't claim land ownership: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a temple priest who sought to assert ownership rights over a Ganesh temple built on a public access road, ruling that a priest does not hold any proprietary interest in such land and functions only as a "servant of the deity" [Rameshbhai Umakant Sharma v. Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi & Ors]..Justice JC Doshi held that the priest had no legal right to stop demolition of the temple or claim ownership over the land simply because he had been performing prayers there for many years.While rejecting the appeal, the Court clearly explained the limited role of a pujari (Hindu priest). It said, “He is not Bhumiswami (landowner), he is just servant of deity. A servant thus, has no right to claim that his possession over the suit property is on behalf of his master and matured into title on principle of adverse possession.”.The dispute began when a landowner objected to the construction of a Ganesh temple on a public access road next to her property and moved a civil court seeking its removal. While both the trial court and the first appellate court ordered the structure to be demolished, the temple priest challenged those rulings before the High Court in a second appeal. He claimed that his long-standing occupation and religious service had given him ownership rights through adverse possession..The High Court made it clear that performing rituals over a long period does not turn into a legal claim over land. It further underlined that religious service does not create ownership rights. “The pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right,” said the Court. .The Court noted that the priest’s claim of ownership was not backed by any solid facts. To prove adverse possession, one must show open, continuous and hostile occupation of the land against the true owner for the required statutory period, it said.In this case, the priest himself admitted that he was performing religious duties on the land with the knowledge and consent of others, rather than asserting ownership. The Court observed that his presence was neither hostile nor adverse to the landowner and that he had never claimed or demonstrated the key elements needed to establish adverse possession..The Court also noted that neither the temple trustees nor anyone representing the deity had come forward to claim ownership of the land or the temple. The priest had acted on his own in asserting rights over the property. It reiterated that in the absence of any claim by the trustees, a priest cannot independently acquire ownership rights on behalf of a deity or the temple..The Court also highlighted the broader issue of religious structures built on public property, stressing that ownership claims cannot be recognised for constructions on public roads.It stated that unauthorised structures can infringe on the rights of landowners and the public and that courts must act firmly to prevent misuse of legal doctrines to protect such encroachments..Advocate Vijal P Desai appeared for the temple priest. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.