Presiding Deity Is Owner Of Land Attached To Temple, Not Pujari: Supreme Court Upholds MP Govt. Circulars

Presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government to delete the names of Pujari from revenue record pertaining to temple properties.

These circulars issued by the Government under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, were earlier quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In appeal, the state contended that such executive instructions were issued so  to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris. On the other hand, the Pujaris contended that they have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights and that cannot be taken away by executive instructions Thus the issue considered was whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under the Revenue Code.

"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 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 bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna said referring to earlier judgments including its 'Ayodhya' judgment.

Another question considered by the court was whether the State Government by way of executive instructions can order the deletion of name of Pujari from the revenue record and/or to insert the name of a Collector as manager of the temple. In this regard the court said:

In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well.

Allowing the appeal, the court clarified that the name of the Collector as manager cannot be recorded in respect of property vested in the deity as the Collector cannot be a manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with the State.

Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti ; CA 4850 OF 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 418

Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna

Counsel: Adv Saurabh Mishra for appellant, Adv Lahoti for respondent

Click here to Read/Download Judgment