Supreme Court: Pujari Is Only a Manager, Not the Owner of Temple Property; Collector Cannot Automatically Be Named Manager of All Temples
In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for temple administration and revenue records across Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court has held that a pujari is merely the manager or custodian of temple property and cannot claim ownership or Bhumiswami rights over land dedicated to a deity. The Court, however, also clarified that the Collector cannot automatically be recorded as the manager of every temple unless the temple is vested in or managed by the State. The ruling came in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021, decided on 6 September 2021.
The appeal arose after the Madhya Pradesh High Court had quashed State Government circulars issued in 1994 and 2008 directing deletion of the names of pujaris from revenue records. The High Court had observed that recording the Collector as manager was impractical and had protected the interests of pujaris. Challenging that decision, the State argued before the Supreme Court that the executive instructions were intended to safeguard temple properties from illegal transfers and unauthorized sales.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the historical legal framework governing temple lands, including the Gwalior Act, the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It also reviewed several earlier judicial precedents to determine whether a pujari acquires ownership rights merely because he manages temple property.
Affirming the earlier decisions in Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas and Mst. Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, the Court held that a pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, government lessee or tenant. His status is only that of a manager entrusted with the duty of performing religious services, cultivating temple land or getting it cultivated for the benefit of the deity and maintaining the temple. The Court categorically ruled that the pujari has no proprietary interest in temple land and cannot transfer it by sale, mortgage or lease.
Rejecting the argument that pujaris become Bhumiswamis under Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the Supreme Court held that Muafi or Inam was granted to the temple itself and not to the manager or priest. Therefore, a pujari cannot be treated as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Bhumiswami merely because he performs religious duties or manages temple property.
The Court further declared that several earlier High Court decisions, including Ghanshyamdas I, Sadashiv Giri, and Shri Krishna, did not lay down the correct law because they overlooked binding precedents recognising the limited legal status of pujaris. According to the Supreme Court, those judgments incorrectly treated pujaris as holders of proprietary rights despite settled law to the contrary.
On the issue of revenue records, the Court clarified that the deity alone is the owner of temple property, as a Hindu deity is a juristic person recognised by law. Consequently, the ownership and occupation columns of revenue records should ordinarily contain only the name of the deity. The Court held that there is no statutory requirement to record either the pujari or the manager in those columns, though the pujari’s name may, if necessary, be mentioned in the remarks column without affecting his managerial rights.
Significantly, the Supreme Court also examined the State’s practice of recording the Collector as manager of temple lands. While it upheld the validity of the Government’s executive circulars aimed at protecting temple properties, it categorically ruled that the Collector cannot be treated as the manager of every temple merely because the property stands in the name of the deity. Such an arrangement may exist only where the temple is vested in or administered by the State under law.
The Court also distinguished public temples from private temples, observing that a temple situated within a private residence or not open to public worship cannot automatically be regarded as a public temple. Whether a temple is public or private depends upon the founder’s intention, the nature of dedication and the rights of worshippers, and must be decided on the facts of each individual case before the competent forum.
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Government circulars dated 21 March 1994 and 7 June 2008, while simultaneously clarifying the legal position regarding temple ownership, the rights of pujaris and the limits of governmental control. The judgment has since become the leading precedent governing disputes relating to temple lands, revenue entries and the distinction between public and private temples in Madhya Pradesh.
Supreme Court of India: The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti on 6 September, 2021 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4850 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 33675 OF 2017)
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti on 6 September, 2021 CIVIL AP
