MST. KANCHANIYA AND ORS. versus SHIV RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 22-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MST. KANCHANIYA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHIV RAM AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 1992 
[M. FATHIMA BEEVI ANDS. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue CiJde, 1959-Sections 2,237, 248( lj 
read with Section 13, Kawaid Maufidaran of Gwalior State-Maufi 
land-Control of Aukaf Deptt. of Government-Mutation of land in the name 
C of Maufidar (Pujari of the temple}-Whether Pujari can lease out-Whether 
lessee acquiredBhumiswami rights on the commencement of the Code-l'os-
session of land by the lessee whether authorised-Ejection of lessee-Validity 
of 
Constitution of India, 1950-Anicle 226-Writ petition unde~enden­
D cy-Death of lessee-Effect of 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal-Appreciation of 
evidence-Legal heirs of lessee not cultivated the maufi land-Direction to 
Govt. to detennine whether pennission to be given for cultivation. 
E 
The ruler of the former Gwalior State by way of maufi gave 78 Bighas 
F 
17 Biswas of agricultural land to a temple of Shri Ram Janakiji. 
The father of respondent no.1. was the Pujari of the temple and he 
was described as the Maufidar in the revenue records. The maufi grant 
was. revoked and the maufi land was handed over to the Department of 
Aukaf as Government property vide Circular dated August 13, 1934 of the 
Government of Gwalior State. 
Mutation was made of the agricultural land as Government property 
and its management was handed over to the Pujari, the father of respon-
G dent No.I. On the death of the Pujari, his son, the respondent No.l's name 
was mutated by the Collector's order dated March 26, 1960. 
Out of the agricultural land, 19 Bighas 8 Biswas was given by the 
father of respondent No.I to one Malkhan, the predecessor of the appel-
lants for cultivation and he continued to cultivate the same even after the 
H death of respondent No.l's father. 
670 
-< -
-~-
~-
MST. KANCHANIY A . v. SHIV RAM 
671 
~ 
In 1967, responde~t no.l moved an application under section 248(1) A 
y 
' )..... 
,.. 
-"(-' 
-
~ 
~ 
of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar for 
eviction of the predecessor of the appellants, Malkhan, alleging that he 
was in unauthorised possession of the land measuring 19 Bighas 8 Biswas. 
The Tehsildar initially passed an order for ejectment against 
Malkhan treating him as a trespasser. 
On appeal the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for 
reconsideration. Therefore, the Tehsildar recorded evidence _and rejecting 
the application of respondent no.l, held that land was given by respondent 
No.1 to Malkhan on lease for his life and as the said lease was still 
effective, Malkhan was not in unauthorised possession of the land. 
The Tehsildar's order was affirmed in appeal by the Sub-divisional 
Officer. 
Second appeal filed by respondent No.l was allowed by the Addition-
al Commissioner holding· that the priest of the temple could only manage 
the affairs of the temple and he could either himself cultivate the land of 
the temple or get the same cultivated by any other person, but he could 
not change the ownership of the temple and since the priest was not the 
land-owner, he had no right to lease out the land of the temple to any other 
person and the lease given by him was meaningless and illegal and inef-
fective since the land in question was Aukaf property. 
Malkhan filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was 
allowed, wherein it was held that the State Government gave the land for 
worship and servke in the temple cultivating the land by the priest of the 
temple or getting it cultivated by somebody else. It was also held that the 
father of respondent No.I allotted the land to Malkhan for his life time 
and that under the authority of the said patta, Malkhan was in possession 
and he had made improvements on the land and that repondent No.l was 
regularly receiving Rs.100 annually towards the land revenue and also 
passed over its receipt. 
The Board of Revenue's order was challenged by respondent No.1 
filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed by a Single 
Judge. The High Court held that the application of the Pujari was main-
tainable under s.248(1) of the Code; that the Board of Revenue was wrong 
B 
I c 
n 
E 
F 
G 
H 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
in treating the possession of Malkhan as authorised; that section 168(4) 
of the Code was not applicable to the present case bec.:ause the land in 
dispute was Aukaf land and neither the deities nor the respondent No.1

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