Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roopkishore Das Student Of Dayaram Das vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267
1 MP-2672-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2672 of 2024
ROOPKISHORE DAS STUDENT OF DAYARAM DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Pathak - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena -Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on: 28.08.2025
Delivered on: 08.10.2025
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shahjapur whereby the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 06.05.2023 passed in COS No.176A/2022 wherein the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction has been dismissed.
2. Facts in nutshell leading to filing of this petition is that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction related to a property situated at Village-Bhilkheda, Tehsil Kalapipal, and District Shajapur, with a total area of 39 Bigha and 1 biswa across several Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 2 MP-2672-2024 survey numbers. It is alleged that the petitioner is the owner and the possession holder of the bearing Survey No. 109 admeasuring 7 bigha and 10 biswa, Survey No. 110 admeasuring 5 bigha, Survey No. 112 admeasuring 3 Bigha and 1 biswa, Survey 113 admeasuring 3 bigha and 11 biswa, Survey No. 114 admeasuring 7 Bigha 15 biswa, Suvey No. 117 admeasuring 5 Bigha and 11 biswa, Survey No. 118 admeasuring 4 bigha and 10 biswa, Survey No. 516 which include survey no. 529/3, 528/2/3 admeasuring total area 1 bigha and 18 biswa, Survey no. 517/9 admeasuring 3 biswa and survey no. 528/1 admeasuring 3 biswa that the total area of the above mentioned Khasra No. which are total 10 in numbers is 39 Bigha and 1 biswa which are situated at Village-Bhilkheda, Tehsil- Kalapipal and Distict- Shajapur herein after referred to as suit property. The petitioner claims ownership rights through a student-teacher tradition, where the property devolved through a line of succession (Ram Charan Das Guru, Premdas, Radha Mohan Das, Dayaram Das, and currently Roop Kishoredas).
3. The suit property was given by Sadashiv Rao and others to Prem Das Guru as "Maafi imadadi" (gifted land), a transfer recorded as a gift in the year 1920. The property was recorded in the name of Premdas Guru as "Pakka Krishak". Following the implementation of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLRC') the great grand teacher was declared the owner/bhumiswami due to statutory effect. This position was maintained until 1974, however, in the year 1975, the revenue records were changed, recording the suit property in the name of Shri Ram Mandir and the Bhumi Swami name as Pujari Radha Mohan Das, leading to the deletion of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 3 MP-2672-2024 the petitioner's great grand teacher's name from the revenue record without any prior proceedings or orders.
4. After discovering an adverse revenue entry related to their land during an auction by respondents the petitioner filed a suit along with an application for a temporary injunction, which was opposed by the respondent. The trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application on May 6, 2023 and the petitioner subsequently challenged this order in an appeal. The appellate court vide order dated 31-01-2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 06-05-2023, passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court's order is illegal, incorrect, and arbitrary because it failed to consider evidence of the petitioner's ownership and possession of the suit property. The Section 158(1)(b) of the 'MPLRC', designates a "Pakka Krishak" as a "Bhumiswami," a status conferred upon the petitioner's ancestor. Counsel further contended that the ancestor's name was deleted and the Collector's name was inserted as administrator without due process or a proper order, based only on administrative instructions. The property is private, not public trust land, and that lower courts ignored a long-standing "teacher-student tradition" recorded in revenue records related to the property.
6. Counsel further argued that the name of petitioner's ancestor have been deleted unilaterally, without following due process of law and the name of Collector has been inserted as administrator of suit property without there Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 4 MP-2672-2024 being any order in this regard only on the basis administrative instructions. It is further submitted that such an unilateral change of revenue entry neither confers any right on the person whose name has been inserted nor takes away any right of the person whose name has been deleted. The petitioner and his ancestors are undisputed owners of the suit property and are in possession of the same since 1920 onwards to till date.
7. Further contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for temporary injunction has to be decided on the basis of possession and the petitioner is in possession of suit property which is also clear from the notice of auction, which has not been finalized and given effect as the possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff this important aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned courts below and has wrongfully dismissed the application filed by the petitioner which requires interference by this Hon'ble court. The learned appellate court has held that the provision contained under the M.P. Public Trust act, 1951 would be applicable in the case which is completely erroneous as the property in question is a private property of the petitioner and does not fall under the category of the public trust. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner's case is based on the balance of convenience in his favour and he suffers irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in rupees. Therefore, the present petition be allowed by quashing the impugned orders dated May 6, 2020 (Annexure P/2) and January 31, 2024 (Annexure P/1) and a temporary injunction be issued against the respondents/defendants.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State denied the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 5 MP-2672-2024 submissions and stated that all the survey numbers mentioned in the application are not disputed in this case and, therefore, the suit property cannot be considered as a disputed land. As alleged, the survey Nos. 516/6 and 528/2/3 have never belonged to the petitioners. The family tree of the guru-disciple tradition presented by the petitioner is false and fictitious and according to the said lineage, there are no mention in any record about the dates of death of the gurus or their subsequent karma certificates, nor is there any mention of the fact that which guru served for how long, according to which system, and by what method the disciple was installed in that position. Guru Ramcharan has not continuously owned the land in Survey Nos. 109 and 110, so also a lease for one or two years does not give Guru Ramcharan any rights to the land. The great grand teacher - Premdas has never been a permanent farmer further, the rent receipts presented do not relate to the actual land in question. The counsel also denied the fact that the petitioner inherited the disputed land after the death of his grandfather, as per the guru- disciple tradition.
9. Counsel for the State also contended that Pujari Shri Dharamdas executed a 'Will' on January 30, 2008, in favor of petitioner-Roopkishore Das. The responsibility for the temple's customs and rituals were transferred to petitioner as per the 'Will'. Pujari Shri Dharamdas passed away on July 16, 2009, thereafter, Roopkishore Das provided a statement confirming commitment to maintaining the temple, trust, and property according to ancestral procedures. The statement specifies that the Mahant Sant Samaj and villagers can remove the petitioner if he deviates from these ancestral Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 6 MP-2672-2024 procedures.
10. Counsel further argued that since Pujari Shri Dayaramdasji himself was appointed as a Pujari by the State Government, therefore, he lacks the authority to appoint a successor (Pujari) for Shri Ram Mandir, except for self-acquired properties and land belonging to him and there is no specific order for appointment of the petitioner as a pujari. The petitioner sold agricultural equipment belonging to the Shri Ram Mandir, which was purchased with temple assets, without State Government's permission, and also attempted to stop an auction process. The State Government conducts this auction annually to generate revenue for the temple, but the petitioner is trying to sell the Mandir land to other individuals. Villagers filed a complaint in 2011 alleging that the petitioner was attempting to sell this property, on the basis of which Tehsildar proceeded against the petitioner up to the Commissioner, Revenue Court, Ujjain, wherein the petitioner lost his case. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in 2022 seeking a declaration of Bhumiswami rights, removal of the Collector as Administrator, and an injunction to stop the auction of the land, merely on the basis of the 'Will' and apart that petitioner's name was no where mentioned in the revenue record. The said application was rejected by the trial court and the the dismissal was upheld by the appellate Court because the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge proceedings related to the land in question.
11. Counsel for the State placed reliance upon the judgment of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 7 MP-2672-2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kanchniya and others Vs Shivram and others, reported as 1992 RN 194 which established that in Maufi Aukaf land, the pujari acts as a manager, but the land ultimately belongs to the State Government, which has the right to decide on its auction or disposal. Therefore, the petitioner could not challenge the land's status. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court and appellate Court have passed appropriate orders after having considered all the facts and material available on record. Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. The sole question for determination in this petition is as to whether the suit land was held by the plaintiffs and their predecessors in Bhumi swami rights or they are appointed as pujari of the suit property under the administration of District Collector.
14. Learned trial Court in paragraph No.12 has recorded finding that there is no material available on record to prove that they are the owners of the suit property and in the revenue records the owner of the suit property is registered as Ram Mandir and the plaintiff and his ancestors have not challenged the same till date therefore according to the provisions of section 117 of MPLRC, the revenue records are presumed to be correct if it is not proved on the contrary therefore Ram Mandir is the Bhumi swami of the suit property.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 8 MP-2672-2024
15. It is appropriate to refer the judgment of Pancham Singh V/s. Ramkrushna Guru Ramdas and Others reported as AIR 1972 MP 14 passed by Division Bench of this Court, which has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others V/s. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Another, [(2021) 10 SCC 222.] held as under:
16. .............. the Division Bench considered a parvana issued by the Aukaf Department whereby muafi land had been granted to the pujari. The same was for upkeep of the temple in relation to which the same was granted. Interpreting Section 13 it was held that the pujari does not have the status other than that of a Manager. He could get the lands cultivated either by himself or through servants but had no right to alienate the same in any manner. It was his duty to keep lands under cultivation so that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards the pooja and upkeep of the temple. The muafi land all the while belong to the Government. The pujari was, therefore, not a kastkar maurusi or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the muafi land but was merely holding it on behalf of the aukaf department for purposes of management. A pujari cannot be recorded as a maurusi kashtkar or an ordinary tenant. He could never become a pakka tenant under Section 54 (vii) of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. The muafi lands are always recorded as milkiyat sarkar under the aukaf department. The whole purpose of the grant which was for upkeep of the temple would be frustrated if the muafi lands were allowed to be sublet by the pujari and new rights created in favour of a stranger. The relevant part of the judgment is as under :-
"5. The Court held as under : (Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti case [State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 2050] , SCC OnLine MP para 10) "10. The learned writ court relying on the decision of the cases of State of M.P. v. Ghanshayamdas [State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas, 999 RN 25] , Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] and Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] has held that right of Pujaris continued from their forefather, cannot be taken away by executive instructions. There was no justification on the part of the State Government to advice to Revenue Commissioner to follow Circular dated 21-3-1994, when the same was quashed. It is not in dispute that as per Clause 5 of the Land Records Manual in Column No. 3 of Khasra Entries deals with the name of occupier; Column No. 4 deals with name Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 9 MP-2672-2024 of bhoomiswami or lessees or his representatives while Column No. 12 deals with the remarks. Undisputedly, the land, which is owned by the temple or deity or the land owned by temple or by the trust, name of the deity/temple or trust, as the case may be, is required to be mentioned in Column No. 3. If the temple is managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down by this Court from time to time, his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of the deity."
(emphasis supplied) (xxvii) preparation and maintenance and revision of land records under Section 121."
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that there is lack of clarity in the High Court in regard to the legal jurisprudence. Different judgments have been referred to in respect of rights of the priests as to whether they can be treated as Bhumiswami or if they only hold the temple land for the purpose of management of the property of the temple, which actually vests with the deity.
10. One of the earliest judgments on the right of a priest was rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] . Section 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran Jujve Araji, Samwat 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gwalior Act") was examined as to the remedy of ejectment of a pujari who claimed status of mourushi kashtakar as under Section 248(1) of the Code or by way of a civil suit. It was held that a Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi i.e. tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the muafi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management.
11. The High Court held as under :
"7. ... The muafi lands all the while belonged to the Government. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourushi or a Government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the muafi lands, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf Department for purposes of management.
***
12. On a plain reading, the definition excludes a Pujari. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the muafi land, but was merely holding them on behalf of Aukaf Department for purposes of management. Under the 2nd Proviso to Section 365 of the Qanoon Mai, Gwalior, he had no right of transfer. ...
***
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the former Pujari had no other Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 10 MP-2672-2024 status than that of a manager of the lands on behalf of the Aukaf Department. While it is accepted before us that the former Pujari had no right of transfer by mortgage or sale, it is urged that there was no restriction on sub-letting. It is also urged that the terms "mourushi kashtakar" and "Dakhilkar Kashtakar Bila Lagani" were synonymous and that, as every mourushi kashtakar had the right to sub-let, it necessarily follows that a Dakhilkar Kashtakar Bila Lagani had also a similar right. We are unable to agree with this line of reasoning. It would be repugnant to the nature of the grant itself to clothe such a person with a right of transfer of any kind. The whole purpose of the grant, which was for the upkeep of the temple, would be frustrated if the muafi lands were allowed to be sublet by the Pujari and new rights created in favour of a stranger.
17. Where a grant of land is made in consideration for service to be rendered by a grantee, in lieu of wages, it is an implied condition of the grant that if the services are not performed or are not required, the grant can be resumed. The Parwana expressly stated that the grant in favour of the former Pujari was resumable for breach of any of the conditions set out therein, or upon his death or removal. The death of the former Pujari was, in the instant case, the terminal point. That being so, the grant lapsed with his death. As the grant created no interest in favour of the former Pujari, whatever rights the petitioners father, Thakur Murlidnarsingh had, also lapsed and he became a rank trespasser."
(emphasis supplied)
12. This Court in a judgment reported as Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] considered the Gwalior Act as well as the Code. The decision of the High Court in Panchamsingh was approved, and it was held as under :
"15. Shri Shiv Dayal has submitted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were in error in holding that a Pujari was not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the muafi land and that the said finding is contrary to the language of Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran wherein it is clearly stated that the Pujari would have the rights of a Kashtakar Mourushi. According to Shri Shiv Dayal the only limitation on the rights of the Pujari as a Kashtakar Mourushi was that contained in Section 265 of the Qanoon Mal whereby he was precluded from selling or mortgaging the muafi lands but there was no provision restricting his right to create a lease for cultivation of the lands. We are unable to agree. Although under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi have been conferred on the Pujari and under 265 of the Qanoon Mal, the restriction on his right was with regard to sale and mortgage only but it cannot be ignored that under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 11 MP-2672-2024
13 of Kawaid Maufidaran the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi which have been conferred on the Pujari is subject to the overriding condition that in case he does not perform his duties properly, he can be removed and another Pujari can be appointed and a patta could be issued in his favour. This is also borne out by definition of the expression "Kashtakar Mourushi" in Section 2(29) of the Qanoon Mal which imposes the condition that the Aukaf Department would be entitled to dispossess, without an order of the court, the Pujari who obtains the right of Kashtakar Mourushi on the basis of Kawaid Maufidaran and who does not render his services properly. The matter is further made clear by the prescribed form of the Parwana which is issued to the Pujari wherein it is also clearly mentioned that Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is that of a manager and that he could get the land cultivated either himself or through others so that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards worship and upkeep of the temple and that the grant would be resumed for breach of any of the conditions or upon the death of the former Pujari. In other words, the rights of the Pujari do not stand on the same footing as those of a Kashtakar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who was entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panchamsingh case that a Pujari had no other status than that of the manager functioning under the control of the Aukaf Department and he had no right to transfer, either by way of sale or mortgage or by lease, the land entrusted to him. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the patta granted in favour of Malkhan by Vasudev Rao, father of Respondent 1, was not valid and did not confer any right or interest on Malkhan in the land covered by the said patta."
(emphasis supplied)
13. This Court further held that temple land does not fall in any of the excepted categories in Section 2(1)(z-3), therefore, it was unoccupied land and set apart for a public purpose i.e. for the upkeep of the temple. It was thus held that patta granted in favour of Malkhan to cultivate the land in dispute came to an end on the death of Malkhan and the possession of the appellant over the land in dispute as legal heirs of Malkhan cannot be said to be authorised by Respondent 1 :
"19. The land in dispute does not fall in any of the excepted categories mentioned in Section 2(1)(z-3). It must, therefore, be held to be unoccupied land. Since it was set apart for a public purpose viz. for the upkeep of temple, it can be said to be land set apart for a special purpose under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 237 of the Code. What has to be seen is whether the possession of Malkhan of the same was unauthorised. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the possession of Malkhan could not be said to be unauthorised on the date of the filing of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 12 MP-2672-2024 application by Respondent 1 in view of the fact that Vasudev Rao, father of Respondent 1, had granted a patta permitting Malkhan to cultivate the land during his (Malkhan's) lifetime and after the death of Vasudev Rao, Respondent 1 had also granted a patta permitting Malkhan to continue in cultivation of the land in dispute and had been receiving Rs 100 annually as rent from Malkhan. ... In view of the death of Malkhan during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the question whether Respondent 1 has granted a patta permitting Malkhan to cultivate the land in dispute during his lifetime, does not survive because even if it is held that the patta granted in favour of Malkhan by Respondent 1 permitted Malkhan to cultivate the land in dispute during his lifetime, the said authority under which Malkhan was in possession of the disputed land came to an end on the death of Malkhan and the possession of the appellants over the land in dispute after the death of Malkhan cannot be said to be authorised by Respondent 1."
14. A circular was issued on 28-5-1979 regarding the Devesthani land in respect to control and management of the land attached to the temples, in accordance with the manner mentioned in the circular. In the said circular, there was a restriction that the agricultural land owned by religious institutions should not be leased out for a period of more than 3 years. The priests were allowed to lease up to first 10 acres of land for self-cultivation for maintenance and for management of temple without any auction and without any lease rent. Another 10 acres could be given to the Pujari for his self-agricultural purposes but on payment of lease rent. Such rent was to be deposited in the name of the deity and could be used for the maintenance of the temple. The remaining land could be leased by auction.
15. The policy of auction was challenged by way of a writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal in a judgment reported as State of M.P. v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao [State of M.P. v. Mandir Shri Khande Rao, 1999 RN 392] . The Bench relied upon the earlier Division Bench judgment reported as Ghanshayamdas (2) . However, while referring to the Gwalior Act, the Court held as under:
"13. We are of the considered opinion that the provisions contained in Regulation 13 clearly envisaged the continuance of the muafi and the rights vesting in the deity in respect of its properties including the agricultural holdings till the vesting of the ownership thereof in the State under the Management of its department of "Aukaf" relating to 'Devasthan'. It is obvious, therefore, that so long as the rights of Muafidar were not extinguished vesting the properties including the agricultural holdings in the State and the revenue records were corrected showing the same as 'Milkiat Sarkar' under the management of department of Aukaf relating to Devasthan, there could be no occasion Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 13 MP-2672-2024 for interfering in the management of the holding/land vesting in the Deity/Devasthan in any manner including the grant of temporary leases for the purpose of cultivation taking recourse to auction treating the holdings of the deity as 'Milkiat Sarkar' even though none of the conditions contemplated under Regulation 13 stood satisfied."
16. The Court held that, with respect to the State's right to auction the property of the temple, once the land is vested with the deity/temple, the State cannot have a right to auction the property of the temple.
17. In Ghanshyamdas (1) , the learned Single Bench was not apprised of the judgments of the Division Bench in Panchamsingh or of this Court in Kanchaniya and the same are not referred in the judgment. The Single Bench thus held that the proprietary rights conferred on a pujari could not be brought to an end by an executive instruction. The said judgment was partly overruled in Ghanshayamdas (2)."
17. In State of M.P. and Others V/s. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Another (2021) 10 SCC 222 the Apex Court has held that the pujari is not a kashtkar maurusi i.e. tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the muafi lands but holds such land on behalf of the aukaf department for the purpose of management. The pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be resumed if the pujari failed to do the tasks assigned to him. He cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami. His status is only that of a Manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of a kashtkar maurusi in the ordinary sense. It was held as under :-
"23. This question has already been considered by the courts in Panchamsingh [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] , which has further been affirmed by Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] . 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 muafi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department 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 Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage.
26. Taking into consideration the past precedents, 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).
27. The ancillary question which arises is whether the priest is Inamdar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 14 MP-2672-2024 or Maufidar within the meaning of Section 158(1)(b) of the Code. Such provision contemplates that the rights of every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region i.e. area of erstwhile Gwalior and Holkar as a pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or concessional- holder shall be protected as Bhumiswami. The priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158(1)(b) of the Code. The muafi was granted to the property of temples from payment of land revenue. Such muafi was not granted to a manager. Even Inam granted by the Jagirdar or the ruler to a priest is only to manage the property of the temple and not confer ownership right on the priest. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Panchamsingh [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] and also of this Court in Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] , the priest cannot be treated to be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act 66 of 1950) or in terms of the Gwalior Act. Since the priest cannot be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under any of the provisions of the Code."
16. In the aforesaid judgment it was also held that the pujari does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158 (1)(b) of the 'MPLRC'. Muafi land granted to the pujari does not confer ownership rights upon him. He cannot be treated to be either a muafidar or inamdar in terms of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 or in terms of the Gwalior Act. Since he cannot be treated to be a Bhumiswami he does not have any right which could be protected under the provisions of the Code, 1959.
17. The respondent/State along with its reply has filed a copy of the 'Will' executed by Pujari Shri Dayaramdasji wherein it is mentioned that God is the real owner and petitioners/plaintiffs are only the managers, therefore, it is prima facie established that the petitioner/plaintiff have only the right to manage the day to day affairs of the Ram Mandir. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the same does not warrant any interference. However, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29267 15 MP-2672-2024 is made clear that the dispute of ownership shall be considered by the trial Court while deciding the case finally. In the meantime, it is directed that, during the pendency of the case, the District Collector, whose name is registered as a manager/administrator in the revenue papers, shall provide sufficient funds to the pujari of the temple for the day to day management of the temple.
18. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 08-10-2025 19:06:23