Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 7: In a landmark judgement on Tuesday, the Supreme Court has ruled that a “priest” of a temple could not be treated as the “owner” of the land attached to the temple but the presiding deity of the temple was the rightful owner of the piece of land.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna ruled that the presiding deity of the temple was the owner of the land attached to the temple, while priests are only required to perform rituals and maintain properties of the deity. The bench upheld the circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh government directing that the names of priests be deleted from revenue records of temple properties.
In its order, the bench cited precedents including the Ayodhya land dispute case. “The law is very clear on the distinction that priests hold such land only for the purpose of management. They are not ordinary tenants and should only manage the property of the deity. Such rights can be withdrawn if they fail to do the task they have been assigned, which is to conduct prayers and manage the land. Hence, they cannot be treated as owners of the land,” it said.
The ruling was delivered on a petition filed by the MP government challenging the quashing by the high court of the said circulars, which were issued under the Land Revenue Code, 1959. These circulars ordered deletion of the names of pujari from the revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorised sale by the priests.
In its appeal, the Shivraj Singh Chouhan-led government argued that these executive instructions were passed to prevent illegal sale of temple properties by priests. The priests, on the other hand, contended that they have been conferred rights to ownership of the land which, they, said, cannot be withdrawn by means of executive orders.
The apex court’s verdict would go a long way to solve disputes related to numerous temples in the country where the priests and their descendent family members have kept enjoying the benefits of the temple lands and in many cases have even sold the lands and pocketed the benefits. There also had been a large number of cases where some people created “make-shift” temples on public lands and over a period of time claimed ownership of such lands.
The apex court ruling said a priest cannot be treated as “Bhumiswami” (owner of land) and the deity is the owner of the land attached to a temple. “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,” the top court said.
It added that the law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, (tenant in cultivation) or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands (land exempted from payment of revenue) but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department (relating to ‘Devasthan) 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 said.
“We do not find any mandate in any of the judgments to hold that the name of Pujari or manager is required to be mentioned in the revenue record, the bench said.
The court also ruled against holding the concerned district collectors as managers of the lands unless the temple was vested in the state government. It said 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.
