Pujari Cannot Be Treated As Bhumiswami, Muafidar, Inamdar Or Kashtakar Mourushi

20th November, 2023 - 11:45 am Categories: Legal Issues 0 Comments

Factual Background

A writ petition was filed by the Association of Priests registered under the M.P. Society Registry karan Adhiniyam 1973 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in order to seek quashing of the circulars dated 21.03.1994 and 07.06.2008 whereby the names of Pujaris were ordered to be deleted from the revenue record.

The Ld. Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and held that the circulars dated 12.11.1992 and 21.03.1994 were already quashed by the High Court in the years 1995 and 1999 respectively and therefore there was no justification on the part of the State Government to issue circular dated 07.06.2008 directing the Revenue Commissioner to follow the circular dated 21.03.1994 and thereby quashed the said impugned order dated 07.06.2008.

An intra-court appeal was preferred against the aforesaid findings.The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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.

Arguments On Behalf Of The Appellant

The contention of the Appellant was that the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, had issued executive instructions to delete the names of Pujari from the revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris.

Arguments On Behalf Of The Respondent

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

It was the contention of the Respondent that Punjaris have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions. It was argued that in terms of proviso to Section 57, the rights granted to the Pujaris have been protected and would remain unaffected by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. In terms of Section 158, every person, in respect of land held in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, confers Bhumiswami rights on the pujari, which has further been protected by a conjoint reading of Section 57 and Section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Analysis And Conclusion

The Apex Court expressed that there was lack of clarity in the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in regard to the legal jurisprudence. The Apex Court substantiated this by referring to numerous judgments pertaining to the question whether priests can be treated as Bhumiswami or if they only hold the temple land for the purpose of management of the property of the temple, which actually vests with the deity.

The earliest judgment on the aforesaid aspect was delivered by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors. It was held therein that a 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.

In another case of MstKanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others, it was held that the rights of the Pujari do not stand on the same footing as those of a KashtakarMourushi in the ordinary sense who was entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage. Further, it was clarified that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager.

The Apex Court observed that the law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a KashtkarMourushi, 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 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 KashtkarMourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking in consideration the past precedents, and the fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given right to manage the property of the temple, expressed that the same does not elevate the Punjari to the status of KashtkarMourushi.

A priest cannot be treated to be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 or in terms of Gwalior Act. Since the priest cannot be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under any of the provisions of theM.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 because the priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section158(1)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Author: Sonakshi Pandey, a student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. State of M.P. v. Pujari UtthanAvamKalyanSamiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222
2. Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas&Ors, 1971 SCC Online MP 26
3. MstKanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250
4. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/09/08/who-will-be-the-owner-of-temple-property/