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

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 06-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 intra-
court 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 gr

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