The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a claim by the pujari of Mandir Ganesh Ji in Ashoknagar district. The pujari sought ownership rights over agricultural land attached to the temple.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia held that a pujari is only a servant of the deity. Therefore, a pujari cannot claim temple property as private property.
The Bench observed:
“Manager or Pujari is the servant of Deity and property of temple belongs to Deity and not Manager/Pujari.”
Background
In the suit, the temple acted through Bhalchandra Rao, who claimed to be its pujari. He sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction over large agricultural lands in Shadora, Nagukhedi and Piprauli villages.
According to Rao, Subedar Chimanji built the temple about 200 years ago. He also claimed his predecessors managed the temple and its properties. In addition, he argued the temple was a private family temple. For that reason, he asserted control over the disputed lands.
Earlier, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favour of the temple. However, the State Government challenged those findings before the High Court.
High Court findings
As a settled principle, temple property vests in the deity. Even if Rao’s predecessors served as pujaris, that role did not give them ownership rights.
Importantly, the Bench rejected the “private family temple” claim. The Court noted that the facts did not support private construction or funding by the plaintiff’s predecessors. Instead, the record showed Peshji Naro Chimnaji Subedar constructed the temple.
Accordingly, the Court held that the lower courts correctly treated the land as temple/deity property.
Succession-based management set aside
At the same time, the High Court disagreed with the finding on hereditary management. The lower courts had held that the plaintiff had a succession-based right to manage temple affairs and offer prayers. Yet the Bench said the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved such a right.
Moreover, the plaintiff produced no documents showing income from the lands. He also failed to show expenses for renovation, maintenance, or prasad. The Bench further flagged misuse of temple income for personal purposes.
In view of this, the Court held that the interests of the plaintiff and his successors conflicted with the interests of the deity. Therefore, the Court refused to allow them to manage the temple or act as pujari.
Directions
Notably, the Court recorded that the temple vested in the Maufi Aukaf Department of the State Government. It directed that the Collector will act as the manager of the temple.
Finally, the High Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: State of MP v. Mandir Shri Ganesh Ji
For Appellant: Advocate Rajendra Jain
For Respondent: Advocate Prashant Sharma
