Read Time: 07 minutes

In a significant Judgment upholding Deity’s rights, Supreme Court on Monday observed that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple, not the pujari (priest).

Court upheld the circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government seeking to delete names of Pujari from revenue record pertaining to the temple properties.

The Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna further held that in a temple, the Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the Deity.

The two circulars issued in 1994 and 2008 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.

However, the counsel of the respondents which included an Association of Priests namely Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti contended that they have been conferred Bhumiswami (ownership) rights, a right which cannot be taken away by executive instructions.

Thus, noting that different judgments have been referred to in respect of rights of the priests which implies that there is a lack of clarity in the High Court in regard to the legal jurisprudence, the court examined the issue of whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under the Revenue Code or they only hold the temple land for management.

Referring to earlier judgments, the Court said that the question has already been considered. Court said,

“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.”

Therefore, the Court held,

“The Pujari is only a grantee to man[1]age 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.”

Taking into consideration the past precedents, Court added that and the fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given the right to manage the property of the temple, it is clear that that does not elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in cultivation).

Court also dealt with another issue as to whether the State Government by way of executive instructions can order the deletion of the name of Pujari from the revenue record and/or to insert the name of a Collector as manager of the temple.

The Court said that it did not find in any of the previous judgments to hold that the name of Pujari or manager is required to be mentioned in the revenue record.

Court held that for a deity being a juristic person, it is the owner of the land and in the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned.

“Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well”, the court held.

Clarifying 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, the court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti