Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kripa Shankar Jangid vs State Of M.P. on 5 August, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 7th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3549 of 2006
KRIPA SHANKAR JANGID
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S.D.Singh, learned counsel
for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sunderam, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
In view of the facts and ground it is humbly prayed that notice Annexure P/1 and auction proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 & 2 may kindly be quashed and respondent be directed not to auction the land of the Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan.
Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the nature of the petition may kindly be issued doing justice in 2 the matter.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that land bearing survey No.384 admeasuring 6.657 hectare situate in Village Vijaypur, Teshil and District Sheopur is in the name of temple Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji. As submitted by learned Senior Advocate, the land is under the control of Aukaf Department. Petitioner is in possession of the land of the deity for the last 10 years.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity of hearing, auction of the land of the deity has been started, therefore, this petition is preferred.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that initiation of auction proceedings by the respondents is without jurisdiction. When the land is under the control of Aukaf Department, then Revenue Department has no authority to initiate any proceedings or to auction the land. Petitioner is in possession of the land for last ten years, therefore, without affording opportunity of hearing, auction cannot be held.
5. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and rebutted the claim. According to learned counsel for respondent/State, petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings. Disputed land is Aukaf Land which is given for upkeeping of the temple namely, Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji. One application was filed on behalf of the Secretary of the temple, which is a registered public trust, on 22.04.2006, in which it is specifically mentioned that land bearing Survey No.384 admeasuring 6.657 hectare situate at Village Vijaypur is a Maufi land and is attached to 3 the temple for upkeeping the temple. In the said letter, auction was prayed for, for maintenance of the temple. On the basis of the said application, Tehsildar Sheopur initiated auction proceedings. A publication was duly issued on 22.06.2006 and concerned Patwari also submitted his report that the land belongs to temple Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji, and there is no one in possession of the disputed land.
6. After considering the bids, land has been given to one Guddu @ Shubhash for Rs.63,000/- and order has been duly issued in this regard on 18.07.2006 and it was duly accepted by the Collector, District Sheopur (vide Annexure R/6).
7. Auction proceedings have been duly completed and therefore, petitioner has no locus standi or vested interest to challenge the same. It is further contended that disputed property is the property of deity. Learned counsel for respondent/State relied upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Kanchaniya and others Vs. Shiv Ram and others, AIR 1992 SC 1239.
8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. This is a case where petitioner, without establishing his claim as the possessor of the disputed property, filed the petition and is enjoying the interim relief since 21.07.2006.
10. On close scrutiny, it appears that petitioner has nowhere filed any document except the document of auction and one Khasra in which land in question is found to be in the name of deity through Manager, 4 Collection, District Sheopur as Bhoomiswami. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by respondent/State, petitioner has no locus to challenge the said auction proceedings. It was a misconceived petition just to assert his alleged right over the suit property without cogent ground.
11. Perusal of documents, filed by the respondents with the reply, reveals that land in question belongs to Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji in which Collector is the Manager. Therefore, deity is Bhoomiswami and the said land is managed by the Collector. On the request of Office Bearer of the Trust of Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji Temple, auction was prayed for. Therefore, auction proceedings were held in which successful bidder was given the land for agriculture purpose. In the case of Kanchaniya (Supra), the Apex Court has held as under :-
6. Maufi grants for Devasthan lands were governed by Section 13 of Kawaid Maufi-daran. The said provision, as translated in English, was as under:
"13. Where, on enquiry or at the time of mutation, a Devasthani Maufi land is found to have been derived from Nagis (Defective) Sanad, it shall be deleted from Maufi category and shall be entrusted to the Aukaf Department for Management of Devasthan, and entry of such land shall be made in the Patwari Papers as follows:
'Government property, under management of Aukaf Department relating to Devasthan.
The Maufidar shall be deemed to be holding the land as Pujari or manager Devasthan and, in lieu of service he shall 5 have the right of a Mourushi Kashtakar in such land for which a rent free patta shall be granted to him by Aukaf Department:
Provided that in the event of the services being not rendered satisfactorily by the Pujari or Manager the Aukaf Department shall have the authority to dispossess such Mourushi Kashtakar and appoint another Pujari or Manager in his place and grant him patta for such land".
7. The expression ''Kashtakar Mourushi'' was defined in Cl. (29) of S. 2 of the ''Qanoon Mal'' which provision, as translated in English, was as follows:
"Kashtakar Mourushi" : "Kashtakar Mourushi is one whose rights being heritable, the Malguzar cannot evict him without order of the Court, nor can he enhance the rent without his consent or without an order of the court:
Provided that in case a Pujari or Manager who has mourushi rights under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran Juzne Arazi and Naqdi does not render his services properly, the Aukaf Department shall have the authority to dispossess him without an order of the Court.
8. The following four categories of tenants were specified in Section 249 of Qanoon Mal:
(i) Ex-proprietary tenant;
(ii) Mourushi or Dakhilkar, i.e., Occupancy Tenant;
(iii) Gair Mourushi or Gair Dakhilkar, i.e., Non-occupancy Tenant; and 6
(iv) Sub-Tenant.
9. In Section 265 of Qanoon Mal, it was provided that dakhilkar right is transferable by way of sale or mortgage subject to the conditions laid down. One of the conditions prescribed in the second proviso to Section 265 was that dakhilkar right acquired by a pujari or a manager under S. 13 of the Qanoon Mal could not be subject to sale or mortgage.
10. The aforesaid provisions in Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran and Section 265 of Qanoon Mal have been considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pancham Singh''s case (AIR 1972 Madh Pra 14) (supra) wherein also the Maufi grant in respect of a temple had been resumed and a parwana had been granted to the Pujari of the temple in accordance with Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran and the Pujari had granted a sub-lease and the question was whether the Pujari was competent to grant the sub- lease. In that context, the High Court has also referred to Section 110 of the Land Records Manual of the former Gwalior State wherein it was provided that a Pujari should be recorded as a Kashtakar Dakhilkar Bila Lagani, i.e., with no right or interest, and to Circular No. 4 of Samvat 1991 of the former Gwalior State which required that:
The entry of such land in the Jamabandi should be made in the Patti of Milkiyat Sarkar under the management of the Aukaf Department in the column of ''owner'' and the Pujari or Mujavir should be entered in ziman 4 as Mourusi Bila Lagani.
15.. Although under S. 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the right of a 7 Kashtakar Mourushi have been conferred on the Pujari and under S. 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 S. 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 would 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 Pancham 8 Singh''s case (supra) 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 patta granted in favour of Malkhan by Vasudev Rao, father of respondent No. 1, was not valid and did not confer any right or interest on Malkhan in the land covered by the said patta.
12. In view of the same, petition is misconceived. Petitioner has no locus to challenge the same. In fact, it halted the process and meanwhile, if any mischief has been caused over the land, then respondents and any other person would not have any adverse bearing over the land belonging to the deity. Since much water has flown in last 18 years, therefore, if the successful bidder had deposited the amount, then same be refunded back to him and respondent/State is at liberty to initiate auction proceedings afresh in accordance with law and as per the prevailing rules/guidelines.
13. Petition stands dismissed with cost Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand).
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE vishal VISHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, UPADH 2.5.4.20=5d5050008f4c040023a64cb0 30d9c80d25cbf5f3eb4f56fa864a20db 4fbe3d3e, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=637E939E833627AE8C YAY C13D85E5F2383A287E83C6CDFA6347 A00E482772314FE9, cn=VISHAL UPADHYAY Date: 2024.08.08 10:35:54 +05'30'