The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that the government cannot interfere in the management of a private temple.It has thus directed all District Collectors to first examine the status of a temple, whether they are public or private, before imposing a Scheme of management on them .The development comes in a petition filed by Sarvarakhar of a statedly private Shiv Temple situated in...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that the government cannot interfere in the management of a private temple.
It has thus directed all District Collectors to first examine the status of a temple, whether they are public or private, before imposing a Scheme of management on them .
The development comes in a petition filed by Sarvarakhar of a statedly private Shiv Temple situated in the village of Dunda Seoni, challenging the order of the Registrar of Public Trust constituting a committee of 5 members to manage the affairs of the temple.
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot noted;
"In private temples, Govt. has no role to play. Any land attached to private temple, name of Collector or Pujari as Manager or Trustee is not required to be recorded in revenue entry. It is to be mentioned in the name of deity. If such property or temple is mismanaged then any person interested in temple or deity, who may or may not be worshipper, can institute a suit on behalf of deity as next friend".
The counsel for the petitioner argued that for the last four generations, the petitioner and his forefathers have maintained the temple from the income of 14 acres of land attached to it. The temple was constructed by late Bhawani Patel in 1913, i.e. about 250 years ago and kept around 14 acres of land for the maintenance of this temple and for meeting out the expenses of the Pujari.
Subsequently, a deed was executed, and the name of the late Sumaran as Sarvarahkar was recorded in the record of rights in 1962-63. However, upon complaints made by some villagers, the State, acting in the capacity of Registrar, Public Trust, passed the impugned order constituting the committee of 5 members for managing the temple affairs.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that out of the five members, 2 are public servants, who cannot participate in the religious activities of the temple. The counsel asserted that the State, without conducting any enquiry on the status of the temple, whether it is public or private, tried to impose its own Scheme for the management of the temple.
The petition was opposed by the counsel for the State, noting that upon enquiry, the temple was found to be 200 years old, requiring renovation.
The court noted that the land attached to a temple is recorded in the name of the deity. Under the provisions of CPC, the deity is to be treated as a minor and is always represented by a next friend.
The court relied on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and reiterated that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple, and the Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity. It further clarified 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 thus held that a suit should be filed by a worshipper or a person interested in the temple/deity in the absence of a Pujari. Further, it was noted that the appointment of a pujari by the State could only occur in cases where the temple is recorded as a government temple.
The court further noted that if a deity is installed in a private house or property, then the occupier or caretaker of the temple should be given due preference in the management of the temple and the land attached to it.
In the present case, the court noted that the property attached to a temple should not be mismanaged or usurped by the person under whose control the deity is managed, and therefore, the bench passed the following directions:
"this petition is disposed disposed of with of following directions :-
i) The Chief Secretary of the State is directed to implement directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (supra) by issuing instructions to all the Collectors of the Districts of M.P.
ii) All the Collectors are directed to examine status of temples as of public or private strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (supra) and conduct an enquiry as and when dispute arises.
iii) Respondent no.1 is directed to examine the dispute raised by the petitioner in the light of above direction and examine that temple is private or not within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order".
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-9139-2011
For Petitioner: Advocates Anuvad Shrivastava and Ayush Hoonka
For State: Government Advocate V.S. Chourdhary