BALA SHANKAR MAHA SHANKAR BHATTJEE AND ORS. versus CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GUJARAT STATE

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 17-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K. RAMASWAMY

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BALA SHANKAR MAHA SHANKAR BHATTJEE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GUJARAT STATE 
AUGUST 17, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. KAMASWAMY, JJ.j 
Bombay Public Tntsts Act 1951>-Sectio11 2(13) and 2(17)--l'ublic 
places for religious worship-Nature o/-f'roperties of a temple-Detem1ining 
the character of a temple-W/1ether private or public. 
Words and Phrases:---''Temple" and "Public Tntst''-Mea11ing of i11 the 
co11tat of-Bombay Public Tntsts Act, 1950. 
llldian Evidence Act 187:l:-Sections 35 & Bl-Gazette of Bombay 
Presidency Vol. III-Published i11 1879-Admissibility of Evidence. 
B 
c 
D 
In the State of Gujarat in Panchmahal district near the town of 
Champaner atop the Pavagarh hill a Haveli and a few temples including 
Kalika Mataji temple are situated. The temple is more than a thousand 
years .of old and its record is lost in antiquity. /After the downfall of the 
Mughal empire, the Marathas and Scindias attached great importance to E 
it. Regular cash grants of fixed sums to the temple were made by the 
Scindias and later the British who annexed the territory pursuant to a 
treaty with them in 1860. 
An application under Section 18 of The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 
1950 was made, under protest, for registration of the temple as a Public F 
Trust by the appellant's predecessors after conducting an inquiry the 
Asstt. Charity Commissioner held that the temples and the Haveli were 
public trust properties. On appeal the Charity Commissioner confirmed 
it. On further appeal, the District Judge declared all the temples to be 
private properties and directed deletion of their registration from under G 
Act. The High Court reversed and upheld the registration of Kalika Mataji 
Temple as a public trust property and remitted for fresh inquiry in favour 
of other four temples and Haveli. 
The appellants contended that their family, their predecessors and 
their ancestor, Dev Shanker who had constructed the Temple about a H 
687 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A thousand years ago had always treated the temple and the lands attached 
to it as private properties. They relied on the Will of Bai Diwali, widow of 
their predecessor who had bequeathed the temple to her brother, imer se 
disputes and litigation resulting from the said Will, appropriation of 
income, lack of dedication to the public, prohibition of entry without 
B 
c 
permission and permission to devotees only for Darshan and not Pooja as 
evidence to show that the temple was a private temple. 
The respondents' position was that the temple's origin was lost in 
antiquity, it was situated on a hill where there was no permanent human 
habitation, it was a mile away from the nearest villlage, thousands of 
pilgrims visited it each year for Darshan and perfonnance of individual 
rituals without let or hindrance, they made small and large offerings. 
Government records showed the temple as belonging; to Mataji and the 
appellants as Vahivatdars and Pujaris, the deity received cash allowance 
from the State treasury, separate accounts for the deity's income from 
three sources i.e. State allowance, devotees' offerings and income from 
D immovable property given in Mataji's name were maintained and these 
factors pointed to the temple being a public temple. 
E 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. A plilce in order to be a temple, must be a place for 
public religious worship used as such and must be either dedicated to the 
Community at large or any section thereof as a place of public religious 
worship. In a private temple the beneficiaries were specific individuals 
whereas in a public temple they were indeterminate or Ductuating general 
public or a class thereof. (700-E] 
1.2. Dedication to the public may be oral. Actual dedication when the 
origin of the temple is lost in antiquity may be diffii:ult to prove· but it 
could be inferred from conduct, facts and circumstances. No document of 
dedication is needed but the consciousness of the manager of the temple 
G or the devotees as to the public character of the temple, gift of properties 
by the public or grant by the ruler or Government and long use by the 
public as of right to worship without let or hindrance are relevant for 
showing a temple as a 'public temple'. No set of general principle could be 
laid down. [701·D·G] 
H 
1.3 Treating the Gazette of the Bombay Presidency. Vol. III published 
BALA SHANKAR v. CHARITY COMMNR . 
689 
. in 1879 as admissible under S. 35 read wi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.