Case Note & Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others appealed against the dismissal of their second appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the decree of the First Appellate Court in favor of the respondents, Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath (a Deity) and others. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming ownership of certain lands in Village Kharsod Kalan, District Ujjain, gifted by Syed Mohammad Ali, Manager of the landlord Hakim. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed on appeal. The appellants contended that the temple was a public temple, the revenue records were correctly corrected by recording the Collector as Manager, and the Pujaris had no Bhumiswami rights. The respondents argued that the Deity owned the lands, the Pujaris performed puja and enjoyed usufructs, and the correction in 1979-80 violated Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Supreme Court found that the correction was made without following the mandatory procedure under Section 115, which requires a written report from the Tahsildar and an opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the Deity's name appeared in revenue entries from 1969-70 to 1977, and there was no evidence of mismanagement. The precedents cited by the appellants were distinguished on facts. The Court dismissed the appeal with observations that it is open to the authority to follow the procedure under Section 115 if any further action is required.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Correction of Entries - Section 115, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Procedural Compliance - The correction of revenue entries in 1979-80 recording the Collector as Manager of the temple was held unsustainable as it was made without following the mandatory procedure under Section 115, which requires a written report from the Tahsildar and an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. The First Appellate Court and High Court concurrently found the procedure not followed, and the Supreme Court upheld this finding. (Paras 7-8) B) Temple Property - Ownership and Management - Deity's Rights - The suit was filed by the Deity through Pujaris claiming ownership of lands gifted by Syed Mohammad Ali. The Pujaris did not claim ownership in themselves but acted on behalf of the Deity. The revenue records for 1969-70 to 1977 showed the Deity's name, and the correction in 1979-80 was unilateral. The Court held that the Deity was in peaceful possession and the Pujaris had no Bhumiswami rights but were Maurusi Krishaks. (Paras 5-6) C) Precedent - Distinction - Ramesh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - The facts of Ramesh Das were distinguishable as the claim was not by the Deity but by persons in physical possession. Shri Ram Mandir Indore involved a public temple list, which was not the case here. The Court relied on State Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda, which held that revenue entries cannot be changed without proper enquiry and opportunity. (Paras 6, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the correction of revenue entries recording the Collector as Manager of a temple without following the procedure under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is sustainable, and whether the Pujaris can maintain a suit for declaration and injunction on behalf of the Deity.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and High Court that the correction of revenue entries was made without following the procedure under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Court observed that it is open to the authority to follow the procedure under Section 115 if any further action is required.
Law Points
- Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code
- 1959 requires proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing before correcting revenue entries
- Deity can hold land through Pujaris
- Pujaris do not claim ownership but represent Deity
- Distinction between public and private temple based on facts
