Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Pujaris in Temple Land Management: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 6 September 2021

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33675 of 2017)

Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a temple priest claim ownership of temple land, or are they merely managers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, settling a long-standing dispute regarding the rights of Pujaris (priests) in Madhya Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the legal position of priests concerning temple land, impacting how such properties are managed and recorded in revenue records. The bench comprised Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute over the deletion of Pujaris’ names from revenue records in Madhya Pradesh. The State Government issued circulars on 21 March 1994 and 7 June 2008, directing the removal of Pujaris’ names from revenue records to prevent unauthorized sale of temple properties. This action was challenged by the Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, an association of priests, who claimed that they held ownership rights over the land.

The association argued that the priests had been granted Bhumiswami rights (ownership rights) and that these rights could not be taken away by executive orders. They claimed that they were not merely managers but had proprietary rights over the temple land. The State, on the other hand, contended that the land belonged to the deity and that the priests were only managers, not owners, and that their names were being misused to sell temple properties.

The primary contention was whether the Pujaris could be considered as “Bhumiswami” of the temple land or merely managers of the property. The State government argued that the land belongs to the deity, and the Pujaris are only caretakers. The Pujari association argued that they had been granted ownership rights over the land, which cannot be taken away by executive instructions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case initially went to a Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which ruled in favor of the Pujari association on 20 November 2013. The Single Bench quashed the circulars of 21 March 1994 and 7 June 2008, relying on previous High Court judgments that had already quashed similar circulars. The Single Bench held that the rights of the Pujaris could not be taken away by executive instructions and directed that the name of the Pujari be mentioned along with the deity.

The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in its order dated 14 June 2016, reversed the Single Bench’s decision, holding that Pujaris do not have ownership rights over temple land. The Division Bench stated that Pujaris are only managers of the temple land and have no right to alienate it. The Division Bench referred to a judgment of Division Bench in State of M.P . v. Ghanshyamdas, an order passed against the order in writ petition reported as Ghanshyamdas I. The Court inter alia held that Pujaris had no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have rights only with respect to either cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. The High Court further 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.

The Pujari association then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Division Bench’s decision. The State of Madhya Pradesh also appealed against the order to the extent that the name of the Pujari was to be mentioned along with the name of the deity.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (referred to as “the Code”). Key sections of the Code include:

• Section 2(z-3): Defines “unoccupied land” as land not held by a Bhumiswami, tenant, or government lessee.
• Section 57: Declares that all lands belong to the State Government but protects existing rights. It states:
  
  “(1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including Standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government:
  Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property.”
• Section 108: Mandates the preparation of a record of rights, including the names of Bhumiswamis.
• Section 114: Requires the preparation of land records, including a Khasra (field book).
• Section 158: Defines who is a Bhumiswami, including those holding land as a Pakka tenant, Muafidar, Inamdar, or Concessional holder in the Madhya Bharat region. It states:
  
  “Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code namely-
  (b)every person in respect of land held by him 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, Samwat 2007 (66 of 1950);”
• Section 160: Deals with revocation of exemption from land revenue.
• Section 258: Grants the State Government the power to make rules to implement the Code.

The Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) was also relevant, as it defined the rights of tenants and landholders in the Madhya Bharat region before the enactment of the Code.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The State argued that the preparation of revenue records is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
• The State contended that it had the authority to issue executive instructions to delete the names of Pujaris from revenue records to protect temple properties from unauthorized sale.
• The State referred to circulars issued in 1969 and 1974, which aimed to prevent the illegal transfer of Maufi land (land exempted from revenue) and to ensure that temple lands were not misused by Pujaris.
• The State argued that the land belongs to the deity and not the Pujari.
• The State emphasized that the Collector’s name was to be recorded as manager to safeguard temple properties.
• The State relied on Sections 108, 114, and 258 of the Code to support its arguments, stating that the State has the power to issue executive instructions to protect temple properties.

Arguments by the Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti:

• The Pujari association argued that the Pujaris had been conferred Bhumiswami rights, which could not be taken away by executive instructions.
• They contended that the proviso to Section 57 of the Code protected their rights.
• The association relied on Section 158 of the Code, asserting that Pujaris in the Madhya Bharat region were granted Bhumiswami rights as Pakka tenants, Muafidars, Inamdars, or Concessional holders.
• They argued that the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and the ‘Gwalior Act’ conferred proprietary rights to the priests.
• The association cited the judgment of the High Court in Shri Krishna v. State of M.P., which supported their claim of Bhumiswami rights.
• They relied upon Sections 57, 158 & 159 of the Code.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether a priest (Pujari) can be treated as a Bhumiswami under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) and consequently under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
2. Whether the State Government can, through executive instructions, order the deletion of a Pujari’s name from revenue records and insert the name of a Collector as manager of the temple.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors. [AIR 1972 MP 14] – High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Held that a Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi but holds land for management on behalf of the Aukaf Department.
• Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others [AIR 1992 SC 1239] – Supreme Court of India: Approved the decision in Pancham Singh, clarifying that a Pujari is a manager and not an owner.
• State of M.P. and others v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao [1999 RN 392] – High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Held that the State cannot auction temple property once it is vested with the deity.
• Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235] – High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Single Bench): Held that proprietary rights of a Pujari cannot be ended by executive instruction.
• State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas [1999 R.N. 25]– High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Division Bench): Partly overruled Ghanshyamdas I, holding that Pujaris cannot alienate temple property.
• Shri Krishna v. State of M.P. [2012 (4) MPLJ 466] – High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Held that Pujaris are Bhumiswamis.
• Sadashiv Giri & Ors. v. Commissioner, Ujjain & Ors. [1985 RN 317] – High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Held that Pujaris were Inamdars and became Bhumiswamis.
• M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others [(2020) 1 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a Pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait.
• Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another [AIR 1970 SC 532] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a Pujari claiming proprietary rights is an act of mismanagement.
• Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Ors. [AIR 1957 SC 133] – Supreme Court of India: Drew a distinction between public and private temples.

Legal Provisions:

• Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959:
  • Section 2(z-3): Definition of “unoccupied land.”
  • Section 57: State ownership of all lands.
  • Section 108: Record of rights.
  • Section 114: Land records.
  • Section 158: Definition of Bhumiswami.
  • Section 160: Revocation of exemption from land revenue.
  • Section 258: General rule-making power.
• Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950): Defined the rights of tenants and landholders in the Madhya Bharat region.
• Qawaid Muafidaran Jujve Araji, Samwat 1991 (Gwalior Act): Governed land rights in the erstwhile Gwalior State.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors. [AIR 1972 MP 14]: *Followed*. The Court upheld the principle that Pujaris are managers, not owners.
• Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others [AIR 1992 SC 1239]: *Followed*. The Court reiterated that Pujaris do not have ownership rights and are only managers.
• State of M.P. and others v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao [1999 RN 392]: *Cited*. The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the State does not have the right to auction temple properties.
• Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235]: *Overruled*. The Court held that the Single Bench judgment was incorrect in stating that Pujaris have proprietary rights.
• State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas [1999 R.N. 25]: *Followed*. The Court relied on the Division Bench ruling that Pujaris cannot alienate temple property.
• Shri Krishna v. State of M.P. [2012 (4) MPLJ 466]: *Overruled*. The Court held that this judgment incorrectly conferred Bhumiswami status on Pujaris.
• Sadashiv Giri & Ors. v. Commissioner, Ujjain & Ors. [1985 RN 317]: *Not followed*. The Court stated that this judgment was erroneous in holding Pujaris as Bhumiswamis.
• M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others [(2020) 1 SCC 1]: *Cited*. The Court used this case to reinforce that Pujaris are servants of the temple, not owners.
• Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another [AIR 1970 SC 532]: *Cited*. The Court cited this to support that Pujaris claiming ownership is mismanagement.
• Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Ors. [AIR 1957 SC 133]: *Cited*. The Court referred to this case to distinguish between public and private temples.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Precedent: The Court heavily relied on previous judgments, particularly Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas & Ors. [AIR 1972 MP 14] and Mst Kanchaniya and Others v. Shiv Ram and Others [AIR 1992 SC 1239], which clearly established that Pujaris are managers and not owners of temple land.
• Statutory Interpretation: The Court interpreted the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) to conclude that Pujaris do not fall under the categories of Bhumiswamis, Inamdars, or Muafidars.
• Protection of Temple Property: The Court emphasized the need to protect temple properties from misuse and unauthorized sale, which was the reason behind the executive instructions issued by the State Government.
• Role of Pujaris: The Court clarified that Pujaris are primarily responsible for performing religious duties and managing temple affairs, not for claiming ownership of temple land.
• Distinction between Public and Private Temples: The Court noted that the circulars of the State Government apply to public temples, but a distinction between public and private temples exists, which can be decided in appropriate proceedings.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretations and precedents, with a smaller emphasis on factual aspects of the case. The legal considerations (80%) significantly outweighed the factual considerations (20%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning followed a clear logical path, starting with the legal question, analyzing the relevant statutes and precedents, and arriving at a conclusion based on that analysis.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Pujaris are Bhumiswamis, emphasizing that they are merely managers of temple land. The court’s reasoning was based on a consistent line of precedents and a careful interpretation of the relevant statutes. The court also clarified that while the State can issue executive instructions to manage temple properties, the name of the Collector cannot be recorded as manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with the State.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “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… Therefore, the name of the Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remark’s column.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, who both agreed on the final judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Pujaris are not the owners (Bhumiswamis) of temple land; they are only managers.
• The State Government can issue executive instructions to manage temple properties.
• The name of the Pujari should not be recorded in the ownership column of revenue records but may be recorded in the remarks column.
• The name of the Collector cannot be recorded as the manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with the State.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that temple land belongs to the deity.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than dismissing the writ petition and allowing the appeal. The Court clarified that the circulars dated 21.3.1994 and 7.6.2008 are not illegal in any manner.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of the case is that Pujaris are not the owners (Bhumiswamis) of temple land but are merely managers. This ruling clarifies that temple land belongs to the deity, and Pujaris are only responsible for managing the property and performing religious duties.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment overrules the High Court’s judgment in Shri Krishna v. State of M.P. [2012 (4) MPLJ 466], which had incorrectly conferred Bhumiswami status on Pujaris. It also clarifies the position of law by stating that the name of the Collector cannot be recorded as manager of all temples unless it is a temple vested with the State. The Supreme Court reinforced the legal position that Pujaris are not owners but managers of temple land, thereby settling a long-standing debate in Madhya Pradesh.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti clarifies that temple priests (Pujaris) are not owners of temple land but merely managers. The land belongs to the deity, and the Pujaris are responsible for managing the property and performing religious duties. The Court upheld the State Government’s circulars aimed at protecting temple properties from misuse. This decision settles a long-standing dispute and provides clarity on the legal status of Pujaris in relation to temple land management in Madhya Pradesh.