Surendra Singh S/O Khuman Singh vs Sagarbai W/O Ramlal And Others

Survey No.,Area in Hectares

423/1,0.575

115,0.177

116,0.355

117,0.329

118/1,0.052

118/2,0.052

120,0.533

121,1.859

,

Thereafter a First Appeal was preferred against the judgment dated 3/4/1991 by the respondent Collector / State and the First Appeal was also,

dismissed on 23/12/1997, meaning thereby, in place of Collector, Mandsaur, the name of plaintiff / respondent No.4 / petitioner was to be mutated. The",

revenue record, in the present case, categorically reveals that the land in question is in the name of deity and Column No.2 of the Revenue Record,",

which was annexed as Annexure P/1 with the Writ Petition, categorically mentions the owner of the land / title holder of the land as Mandir Shri",

Girdharnath Ji, through Manager Mohini Kunwar. Thus, undisputedly, the property was in the name of deity.",

Inspite of the fact that the property was in the name of deity, the respondent No.4 before this Court â€" Mohini Kunwar has executed a sale deed",

of agricultural land exclusively belonging to the temple to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 31/3/2004, 5/5/2004 and 10/11/2003.",

The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 7/6/2004 for mutating the name of respondent No.1, 2 and 3 in the revenue records. Mutation of name",

in the revenue record is always done by the Tehsildar and there is a prescribed procedure provided under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and in",

those circumstances a complaint was made before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 23/2/2011 has cancelled,

the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and liberty was also granted to the present appellant to take appropriate action in accordance with law,

for challenging the sale deed.,

An appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the appellate authority by order dated 3/8/2011 has dismissed,

the appeal for want of maintainability.,

Thereafter a Second Appeal was preferred against the order dated 3/8/2011 and the same was also dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain",

Division, Ujjain by order dated 23/4/2011. The respondent No.1 to 4 thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of",

Revenue has also dismissed by revision by order dated 8/2/2017. The respondent No.1 to 4 thereafter filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 / 227 of,

the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the,

temples in question were the private property of respondent No.4 and there is a difference between private temples and the temples open for public. It,

has also been observed that the authorities have wrongly concluded that the suit property is deity's property and, therefore, the mutation done on the",

basis of sale deed executed by respondent No.4 was in order. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.4 was,

competent to execute sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to get their name mutated in the",

revenue records, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 7/6/2004.",

In the present case, the undisputed facts as established from the record makes it very clear that the temples in question and the lands attached to",

the temple were recorded in the revenue records in the name of Mandir Shri Girdharnath Ji and respondent No.4 is the Manager. It is not a case,

where the land is recorded in the name of respondent No.4 or her ancestors showing existence of a temple. The property in question was dedicated to,

the deity and the deity is perpetual minor and by no stretch of imagination, the property could have been sold by sale deed as the deity is the title holder",

of the property.,

A similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bijoy Krishna Mishra Vs. Chittaranjan Das Bera,

reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4476. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case oAf . A. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and others,

reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482 in paragraph 10 has held as under:,

The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/ Sebaits/employees.",

Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards",

have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with",

the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government,",

members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to",

protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.,

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the deity is a perpetual minor and rights of the deity are to be protected by the Courts, no sale of land",

could have taken place in the manner and method it has been done and, therefore, the subsequent resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for",

mutation of name is bad in law.,

The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kailash Chand and others Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer and others,

reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Raj. 839 has taken a similar view.,

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samit reported in 2017 (3) MPLJ 377,

has taken a similar view. It has been held in the aforesaid that the name of the Pujari mutated in the revenue record, cannot be replaced by the",

Collector, however, the fact remains that the Pujari will continue to be a Manager, he does not become the title holder and it is the deity who is the title",

holder of the property.,

In another case decided by this Court ie., Gayaprasad and another Vs. State of MP reported in 2009 RN 347, this Court after taking into account",

Sec. 158, 185 and 57 of the MP Trusts Act, 1951 has held that the Pujari cannot claim right of Bhumiswami or even right of a tenant and the deity",

being a juristic person can hold the same. It has been further stated that in respect of the property owned by the deity, it being a religious property, no",

right can be claimed by the Trustee or the Manager. Thus, in short, once it is an established fact that the title holder of the property is a deity, as in the",

present case, which is established from the revenue record (Annexure P/1) filed with the Writ Petition. The respondent No.4 is simply a Manager and",

not the title holder. The title holder is Mandir Shri Girdharnath Ji (the deity) and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed",

by the revenue authorities does not warrant any interference and the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.,

It is a well settled proposition of law that dedicated property vests in the idol as a juristic person. When a property is given absolutely by a pious,

Hindu for worship of an idol, the property vests in the idol itself as a juristic person. There are various judgments delivered from time to time on this",

issue. The Hindu idol is a juridical subject and the pious idea that it embodies is given the status of a legal person and is deemed capable in law for,

holding property in the same way as a natural person. It has a juridical status, with the power of suing and being sued. Its interest are attended to by",

the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its Manager, with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be",

given to the Manager of the estate of an infant heir and, therefore, once the property has been given to a temple, which is known as debutter or",

endowment in favour of the established idol, the question of its disposal by the Manager is illegal. Once the property is dedicated to the deity which is",

a juristic person holding the title, cannot be sold by the Manager, as has been done in the present case and, therefore, the order of the Board of",

Revenue by which the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has been set aside in respect of the mutation, are certainly valid orders and, therefore, the",

order passed by the learned Single Judge which affirms the sale and mutation of the property belonging to the deity, deserves to be set aside and is",

accordingly hereby set aside.,

The Writ Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.,