Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandir Murti Shri Radha Vallabh Ji ... vs The State Of M.P. on 1 July, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7987/2020
(MANDIR MURTI SHRI RADHA VALLABH JI THROUGH ITS
PUJARI BHAWANI SHANKAR VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH)
Gwalior dtd. 01/07/2020
Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri M.P.S.Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"7.1) That, the respondents may kindly be pleased to
direct to not the construct the pond/sarovar on the lands of petitioners under the said instruction/guidelines/circular and annexure P-8. 7.2) That, the respondents may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents if the land of petitioners are required for construction of ponds/sarovar than it may be acquired under the provision of Land acquisition Act.
7.3) any other relief which this Hon'ble deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. Costs of this petition be awarded in favour of petitioners."
This petition has been filed by Mandir Murti Shri Radha Vallabh Ji Banke Kunj Sthith Puktha Kila Premises, Sheopur and Mandir Shri Gordhan Nath Maharaj Banke Kasba Sheopur, District Sheopur through its pujari Bhawani Shankar Bairagi.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact the property belongs to a public trust.
Therefore, the question for consideration is that whether the 2 Pujaris can act as a next friend or they have a locus standi to file a petition on behalf of the deity or Public Trust or not, and whether the Pujari has any Locus standi or say in the management of the Temple Property.
The Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddique (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others by judgment dated 9-11- 2019 passed in C.A. No. 10866-10867 of 2010 has held as under :
123. The recognition of the Hindu idol as a legal or ―juristic‖ person is therefore based on two premises employed by courts. The first is to recognise the pious purpose of the testator as a legal entity capable of holding property in an ideal sense absent the creation of a trust. The second is the merging of the pious purpose itself and the idol which embodies the pious purpose to ensure the fulfilment of the pious purpose. So conceived, the Hindu idol is a legal person. The property endowed to the pious purpose is owned by the idol as a legal person in an ideal sense. The reason why the court created such legal fictions was to provide a comprehensible legal framework to protect the properties dedicated to the pious purpose from external threats as well as internal maladministration. Where the pious purpose necessitated a public trust for the benefit of all devotees, conferring legal personality allowed courts to protect the pious purpose for the benefit of the devotees.
* * * *
Pujaris
332. A final point may be made with respect to shebaits. A pujari who conducts worship at a temple is not merely, by offering worship to the idol, elevated to the status of a shebait. A pujari is a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right as a shebait despite having conducted the ceremonies for a long period of time. Thus, the mere presence of pujaris does not vest in them any right to be shebaits. In Gauri Shankar v Ambika Dutt218, the plaintiff 3 was the descendant of a person appointed as a pujari on property dedicated for the worship of an idol. A suit was instituted for claiming partition of the right to worship in the temple and a division of the offerings. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the relevant question is whether the debutter appointed the pujari as a shebait. Justice Ramaswami held:
―7...It is important to state that a pujari or archak is not a shebait. A pujari is appointed by the Shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship. But that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the Shebait to the purohit. He is not entitled, to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. He is merely a servant appointed by the Shebait for the performance of ceremonies. Where the appointment of a purohit has been at the will of the founder the mere fact that the appointees have performed the worship for several generations, will not confer an independent right upon the members of the family so appointed and will not entitle them as of right to be continued in office as priest...
333. A shebait is vested with the authority to manage the properties of the deity and ensure the fulfilment of the purpose for which the property was dedicated. As a necessary adjunct of this managerial role, a shebait may hire pujaris for the performance of worship. This does not confer upon the appointed pujaris the status of a shebait. As appointees of the shebait, they are liable to be removed from office and cannot claim a right to continue in office. The distinction between a shebait and a pujari was recognised by this Court in Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani of Kalighat v Jibandhan Mukherjee.219 A suit was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the framing of a scheme for the proper management of the seva-puja of the Sree Sree Kali Mata Thakurani and her associated deities.
A Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice JR Mudholkar held:
4―...It is wrong to call shebaits mere pujaris or archakas. A shebait as has been pointed out by Mukherjea J. (as he then was), in his Tagore Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, is a human ministrant of the deity while a pujari is appointed by the founder or the shebait to conduct worship. Pujari thus is a servant of the shebait.
Shebaitship is not mere office, it is property as well."
334. A pujari is appointed by the founder or by a shebait to conduct worship. This appointment does not confer upon the pujari the status of a shebait. They are liable to be removed for any act of mismanagement or indiscipline which is inconsistent with the performance of their duties. Further, where the appointment of a pujari has been at the will of the testator, the fact that appointees have performed the worship for several generations does not confer an independent right upon the appointee or members of their family and will not entitle them as of right to be continued in office as priests. Nor does the mere performance of the work of a pujari in and of itself render a person a shebait.
* * * *
376. The protection of the trust property is of paramount importance. It is for this reason that the right to institute proceedings is conceded to persons acting as managers though lacking a legal title of a manager. A person claiming to be a de facto shebait can never set up a claim adverse to that of the idol and claim a proprietary interest in the debutter property.
Where a person claims to be the de facto shebait, the right is premised on the absence of a person with a better title i.e. a de jure manager. It must be shown that the de facto manager is in exclusive possession of the trust property and exercises complete control over the right of management of the properties without any hindrance from any quarters. The person is, for all practical purposes, recognised as the person in charge of the trust properties. Recognition in public records as the manager 5 would furnish evidence of being recognised as a manager.
377. Significantly, a single or stray act of management does not vest a person with the rights of a de facto shebait. The person must demonstrate long, uninterrupted and exclusive possession and management of the property. What period constitutes a sufficient amount is determined on a case to case basis. The performance of religious worship as a pujari is not the same as the exercise of the rights of management. A manager may appoint one or several pujaris to conduct the necessary ceremonies. In the ultimate analysis, the right of a person other than a de jure trustee to maintain a suit for possession of trust properties cannot be decided in the abstract and depends upon the facts of each case. The acts which form the basis of the rights claimed as a shebait must be the same as exercised by a de jure shebait. A de facto shebait is vested with the right to institute suits on behalf of the deity and bind its estate provided this right is exercised in a bona fide manner. For this reason, the court must carefully assess whether the acts of management are exclusive, uninterrupted and continuous over a sufficient period of time.
* * * *
389......................As noted above, a pujari who conducts worship at a temple is not elevated to the status of a shebait. A pujari gains no independent right despite having conducted the ceremonies for a long period of time. Thus, the mere presence of pujaris does not vest in them any right to be shebaits. The mere performance of the work of a pujari does not in and of itself render a person a shebait. The statement of DW 3/2 establishes at the highest that some priests of Nirmohi Akhara were acting as pujaris, but does not evidence the exercise of management rights for the recognition of their status as a shebait.
Accordingly, it is held that Pujari has no locus standi or say in the management of the temple property and thus they have no 6 right to file a writ petition on behalf of the public trust or on behalf of Deity. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the property belongs to a public trust. Further no authorization to file the writ petition by the Pujari on behalf of the said public trust has been placed on record.
Accordingly, this petition, which has been filed in its present form through Pujari is held to be not maintainable.
It is, accordingly, dismissed on the said ground.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
PRINCEE BARAIYA
2020.07.02
12:36:06 -07'00'