NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).956 OF 2010

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS   ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND  OTHERS         ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of

their second appeal.   The respondent filed a suit for declaration

and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal

was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed.  

2. Shri Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants,

submitted that respondent no.1 was a public Temple. The

revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the

name of the collector as  ‘Vyawasthapak’  (Manager)  which was

done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent

1

nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”.  Therefore, they had no right to

claim ownership of the Temple lands, much less have their

names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against

interference.   The  Temple being situated on government land

belonging to the Aukaf Department was a “Devsthani Muafi”.  The

Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands.  Reliance was

placed on an order dated 22.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of

2009  Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh & ors., and  Shri  Ram Mandi Indore  vs.  State  of

Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2019 (4) SCALE 302.

3. Conversely Shri Randhir Singh Jain, learned counsel for

the respondents, submitted that the Pujaris never claimed any

ownership rights in themselves to the lands.  The lands belonged

to the Deity gifted by Syed Mohammed Ali, Manager of the

landlord Hakim.   The Deity was in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the lands since very long.  Puja was being done by

the Pujaris on basis of the income of the Temple. The unilateral

correction  in the land revenue  entries  as late  as  1979­80,  by

recording the collector as ‘Manager’ was in complete violation of

the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh

2

Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) as

concurrently held by the First Appellate Court and the High

Court.  Reliance  was placed on an order  dated 06.10.2016  in

Civil Appeal No. 8554 of 2015 “State Government of Madhya

Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.”.

4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties

and perused  the  materials relied upon by  the  counsel for the

parties as also the precedents cited.  

5. The suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming

ownership to the lands received from Syed Mohammad Ali,

Manager of the landlord Hakim situated in Village Kharsod

Kalan,  District  Ujjain.   The Pujaris did not lay any claim to

ownership of the lands in them.  The Temple was constructed by

the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and

enjoy the usufructs of the lands also.  They were suddenly made

aware of the correction made in column 3 of the land records in

the year 1979­80 when the collector published notice for auction

settlement  of the lands, leading to the institution of the  suit.

There is no material on record with regard to any alleged

mismanagement of the temple which required it to be taken over

3

by the Collector.  On the evidence on record, the respondents

plaintiffs  have been held to be  Maurusi Krishaks  of the  lands.

Column 3 records their occupation, while the ownership stands

in the name of the Deity.

6. It is not the case of the appellant that the plaintiff Temple

stands recorded in the list of public temples prepared in 2013 for

the  District  of  Ujjain as noticed  in  Shri Ram Mandir  Indore

(supra).   The lands have not been taken on lease by the Deity

from the Government but  from the erstwhile owner.   Ramesh

Das (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the ownership

of the lands for a claim of a private temple was not being made in

the name of the Deity but those physically in possession of the

lands.

7. In the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the

revenue  entries for the  years  1969­70,  1970­71 and 1972­73.

The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for

1973 to  1977.   It is  not the case of the appellants that the

correction in the revenue entries in 1979­80 was made in

compliance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code.

Section 115 reads as follows:

4

“115.  Correction  of  wrong  or incorrect entry in land record­  (1) A Sub­Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on application of  an aggrieved person, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, correct any wrong or incorrect entry including an unauthorised  entry in the land records  prepared under section 114 other than Bhoo­Adhikar Pustika and record of rights, and such corrections shall be authenticated by him:

Provided that no action shall be initiated for correction of any entry pertaining to a period prior to five years without the sanction in writing of the Collector.

(2) No order shall be passed under sub­section (1) without­

(a) getting  a  written report from  the  Tahsildar concerned; and  

(b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested:

Provided that  where interest of  Government is involved, the  Sub­Divisional  Officer shall submit the case to the Collector.

(3) On receipt of a case under sub­section (2), the Collector shall make such enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit.”

8. There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court

and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed,

the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which

the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector

as the Manager thereof was unsustainable.   In  State

5

Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narsingh Mandir,

Chikhalda (supra), this court observed:

“Be that as it may, the appeal of the respondents warranted to be succeeded on the substantial question of law No.2 itself, inasmuch as, the entry in the revenue record could not have been changed by the Tahsildar without holding a proper enquiry and giving an opportunity to the affected persons, namely respondents herein, in this regard. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court can be sustained on that ground alone. Needless to mention,  it  will  always be open to the concerned authority to follow the procedure under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to take further action, if any.

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.”

9. We therefore find no merit in the present appeal.   The

appeal is therefore  dismissed but  with similar  observations as

aforesaid.

.………………………. J.                                                         (Navin Sinha)           

………………………. J.              (Sanjiv Khanna)   

New Delhi, October 25, 2019

6