Pujari Merely A 'Grantee' Appointed To Manage Deity's Property, Can't Claim Rights Over Temple Land: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a Pujari or priest is merely a “grantee” entrusted with the management of a deity's property and his role extends to that of a manager who has no proprietary rights over the land. He cannot thus be treated as Bhumiswami (owner of land).In this regard, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru further observed,“…the law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi. 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. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami. It is also the trite law 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. It is pertinent to mention here that if the Pujari claims proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it is an act of mismanagement and he is not fit to remain in possession or to continue as a Pujari.”Background:The petitioner, Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee, had filed an application before the Tahsildar for entering their name in the Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti (Respondent Trust). While the Tahsildar passed an order directing the Respondent Trust to add the name of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer later set-aside the order of the Tahsildar upon appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, which was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter appealed before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur ('BoD') which was also rejected vide an order dated 03.10.2025 (impugned order). Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition.It was the case of the petitioner that the initial order passed by the Tahsildar was just and proper and the appellate authorities who adjudicated the appeals neither properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, nor did they consider a decree passed in 1989 whereby the Civil Judge Class-II Dhamtari had held that the temple property does not belong to any individual priest or their ancestors.On the contrary, the respondent argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order as it was not a party before the BoR. The respondent, highlighting inconsistencies, further argued the present petition was preferred against rejection of the application for entering the name of the petitioner in the respondent trust, but the petitioner filed had a different order relating to a dispute pertaining to correction of revenue record in the name of the petitioner trust. Court's Findings:At the outset, the Single Judge noted that the respondent Trust was registered on 23.1.1974 for the management of the temple. In relation to a lease/patta issued by the Nazul officer in 1985, the non-applicant had filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the land in 1989. However, in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Dhamtari dated 21.09.1989, which later attained finality, it was held that the trustees have a right to appoint a manager on the basis of majority and that the management of the property is entrusted to the trust. The decree concluded,“It cannot be accepted that the property of the temple in question is the property of any particular person. It cannot be said that the property of the temple belongs to the ancestors of the priests. In such a situation, when the trust has been in existence and is active since the year 1974, it will be naturally assumed that it has the right to look after the property, otherwise the status of the trustee will be like that of a king who does not have a throne.”It was in light of this decree of the Civil Court that the BoD declined to entertain the revision passed by the petitioner.The Single Judge thus held that a Pujari is only a grantee and possesses no right on the temple land and his status equates squarely with that of a 'manager'.The Court further observed,“...it is apparent that the respondent trust is a duly registered trust and is rendering its service since 23.1.1974 and merely on the basis of allotment of patta/lease in the year 1985 the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim right on the temple property.”Regarding the inconsistencies in the petition, the Court held,“… on perusal of the order of the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, it is quite vivid that the petitioner therein was 'Pujarigan Vidhyavasini Mandir, Dhamtari through Power of Attorney, Ramesh Tiwari', whereas in the instant petition, the impugned order passed by the BoD has been challenged by 'Shri Vindyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee, through President Murli Manohar Sharma'. Thus, the petitioner herein has no locus to challenge the order impugned as he, even, was not...

Pujari Merely A 'Grantee' Appointed To Manage Deity's Property, Can't Claim Rights Over Temple Land: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Pujari Merely A 'Grantee' Appointed To Manage Deity's Property, Can't Claim Rights Over Temple Land: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers