Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS VERSUSMURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND OTHERS, the appellant filed an appeal consequent to the dismissal of their second appeal. In this case 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 1979-80 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 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.
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. In the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the revenue entries for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1972-73. 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 1979-80 was made in compliance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code. The Supreme Court referred to the case of State Government of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda and held “We therefore find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed but with similar observations as aforesaid.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824