Temple property belongs to deity, name of pujari need not be mentioned in revenue records: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that when it comes to ownership of a land attached to a temple, the name of the presiding deity alone is required to be mentioned while the pujari is only to perform puja and acts as a grantee to manage the property of the deity (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Another)..A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna ruled that there is no mandate that the name of pujari or manager is required to be mentioned in the revenue records since the deity as the juristic person is the owner of the land."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 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," the judgment said.The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed the two circulars issued by the State Government under the MP Law Revenue Code, 1959 (Code).These circulars were executive instructions that were issued to delete the names of pujari from the revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by pujaris.The respondents claimed that pujaris have Bhumiswami (ownership) rights over temple properties, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions issued by the appellants..The primary questions which the Court considered:1. Whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 and as a consequence under the Code?2.Whether the State Government by way of executive instructions can order the deletion of the name of pujari from the revenue record and/or to insert the name of a Collector as manager of the temple..The Court placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others popularly known as the Ayodhya case wherein it was held that:"A pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait despite having conducted ceremonies over a period of time. All the evidence relied upon to support the claim of late Baba Abhiram Das is restricted to his having performed puja at the disputed premises and does not confer any shebaiti rights.”The Court also placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors which dealt with the rights of priests.In that case, Section 13 of the Gwalior Act was examined as to the remedy of ejectment of a pujari who claimed status of Mourushi Kashtakar i.e., tenant in cultivation as under Section 248 (1) of the Code or by way of a civil suit.In that case, it was held that a pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi 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 Court further relied upon the Gwalior Act which provided that pujari had been given the right to manage the property of the temple and therefore, he cannot be regarded as the tenant of the temple land."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 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 Court stated.Thus, rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant of cultivation) in the ordinary sense, the Court made it clear.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, the Court concluded. "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 judgment held..Advocate Saurabh Mishra appeared for the appellants. Advocate Kartik Lahoti and Divyakant Lahoti appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]