Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Rights, Emphasizes Due Process in Land Record Corrections: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath (25 October 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s).956 of 2010
Judges: Navin Sinha, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can the government unilaterally alter land records pertaining to a religious institution without following due process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, concerning the rights of a temple and the validity of land record corrections. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions, especially those affecting religious entities. The Court’s decision underscores that any changes to land records must adhere strictly to the procedures established by law.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over land ownership involving Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath, a temple, and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The temple claimed ownership of land gifted by Syed Mohammad Ali, a manager of landlord Hakim. The Pujaris (priests) of the temple, who are the respondents, asserted that they had been managing the temple and its properties for generations. They did not claim ownership of the land for themselves, but rather for the deity. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant, contended that the temple was a public one and that the Collector should be recorded as the manager of the temple’s properties. This claim was based on a correction made in the land records in 1979-80, which the respondents contested.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was initially dismissed. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The High Court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court. The defendants, the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, then filed a second appeal, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”). This section outlines the procedure for correcting wrong or incorrect entries in land records. The section states:

“115. Correction of wrong or incorrect entry in land record- (1) A Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on application of an aggrieved person, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, correct any wrong or incorrect entry including an unauthorised entry in the land records prepared under section 114 other than Bhoo-Adhikar Pustika and record of rights, and such corrections shall be authenticated by him: Provided that no action shall be initiated for correction of any entry pertaining to a period prior to five years without the sanction in writing of the Collector. (2) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) without- (a) getting a written report from the Tahsildar concerned; and (b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested: Provided that where interest of Government is involved, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall submit the case to the Collector. (3) On receipt of a case under sub-section (2), the Collector shall make such enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit.”

This provision mandates that any correction in land records must be preceded by an inquiry, a written report from the Tahsildar, and an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard. The Supreme Court emphasized that these procedural requirements are crucial to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The temple is a public temple.
• The revenue records were rightly corrected by recording the name of the Collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’ (Manager) for better management of the temple properties.
• The Pujaris were only “Pujaris” and had no right to claim ownership of the temple lands.
• The temple is situated on government land belonging to the Aukaf Department and is a “Devsthani Muafi”.
• The Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands.
• The appellants relied on the order dated 22.07.2019 in Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., and Shri Ram Mandi Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2019 (4) SCALE 302.

Arguments of the Respondents (Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath and others):

• The Pujaris never claimed ownership rights to the lands.
• The lands belonged to the Deity, gifted by Syed Mohammed Ali.
• The Deity was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands.
• Puja was being done by the Pujaris based on the income of the temple.
• The unilateral correction in the land revenue entries in 1979-80, recording the Collector as ‘Manager’, was in complete violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
• The respondents relied on the order dated 06.10.2016 in State Government of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the correction made in the revenue records in 1979-80, by recording the Collector as ‘Manager’ of the temple properties, was valid and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors.* on the facts, noting that in the cited case, the claim was for a private temple where ownership was claimed by those in possession and not in the name of the Deity.
• The Supreme Court observed that the present case was different from Shri Ram Mandi Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.* because the temple in the present case was not listed as a public temple in 2013.
• The Supreme Court relied on State Government of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.* to emphasize that revenue record entries cannot be changed without proper inquiry and opportunity to affected persons, as mandated by Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse in altering the land records. The Court emphasized that any change in revenue entries must adhere strictly to the procedure laid down in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The absence of any inquiry, report from the Tahsildar, or opportunity for the affected parties to be heard weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also considered the fact that the temple’s name had been in the revenue records for several years, and there was no evidence of mismanagement that would justify the Collector taking over as manager. The Court also noted that the Pujaris were not claiming the land for themselves, but for the Deity.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the procedural requirements of Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Court found that the correction made in the revenue records in 1979-80 was not done in compliance with the prescribed procedure. The Court noted that there was no evidence of any inquiry, report from the Tahsildar, or opportunity for the affected parties to be heard before the correction was made. This procedural lapse was the main reason for the Court’s decision.

The Court also considered the fact that the name of the Deity had been in the revenue records for several years before the correction was made. There was no evidence of any mismanagement of the temple that would justify the Collector taking over as manager. The Court also noted that the Pujaris were not claiming the land for themselves, but for the Deity.

The Court observed: “There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed, the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector as the Manager thereof was unsustainable.”

The Court further stated: “It is not the case of the appellants that the correction in the revenue entries in 1979-80 was made in compliance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code.”

The Court also reiterated the observations made in State Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda that “the entry in the revenue record could not have been changed by the Tahsildar without holding a proper enquiry and giving an opportunity to the affected persons.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Any correction in land records must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by law.
• Unilateral changes in revenue entries without proper inquiry and opportunity for affected parties to be heard are invalid.
• The rights of religious institutions are protected, and any action affecting their properties must follow due process.
• The State cannot arbitrarily take over the management of a temple without following the procedure established by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The Court also made similar observations as in the case of State Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda, emphasizing the need for authorities to follow the procedure under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before taking any further action.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any alteration in land records, especially those pertaining to religious institutions, must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The judgment reinforces the importance of due process in administrative actions and ensures that the rights of religious entities are protected against arbitrary actions by the state. This case does not introduce a new legal principle but rather reinforces existing legal provisions and the need for strict compliance with procedural requirements. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reiteration of the importance of following the due process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath underscores the critical importance of adhering to due process when altering land records, particularly those involving religious institutions. The Court’s decision reaffirms that any changes to land records must comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, ensuring fairness and protecting the rights of all parties involved. The Court dismissed the appeal, thus upholding the rights of the temple and emphasizing the need for procedural compliance in administrative actions.