Pujari Not Landowner, Only Manager Of Deity’s Property: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket has held {that a} pujari (temple priest) can’t declare possession or proprietary rights over temple property, reaffirming that their position is restricted to managing spiritual duties on behalf of the deity.
A writ petition was filed by the Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee difficult a 2015 order of the Board of Income (BoD), reaffirming that the Vindhyavasini Mandir Belief Samiti is the lawful managing physique of the temple and its properties.
A Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “The Pujari is simply a grantee to handle the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the duty assigned to him i.e. to supply prayers. He can’t be thus handled as a Bhumiswami. It is usually the trite legislation that the Pujari doesn’t have any proper within the land and his standing is simply that of a supervisor. Rights of pujari don’t stand on the identical footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi within the bizarre sense who’re entitled to all rights together with the correct to promote or mortgage.”
Advocate Vimlesh Bajpai appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anand Mohan Tiwari appeared for the respondent.
Background
The petition arose from a long-standing dispute over the administration and proprietary rights of the Vindhyavasini Temple at Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner sought to overturn an order handed by the Board of Income on October 3, 2015, which had rejected their plea to incorporate the identify of 1 Ashwani Dubey within the data of the temple belief.
Initially, in 2003, the Tahsildar had directed the inclusion of Dubey’s identify within the belief’s data. Nonetheless, this order was overturned by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Dhamtari, and upheld in subsequent appeals earlier than the Extra Commissioner and the Board of Income.
Observations
The Excessive Court docket, after inspecting the info and authorized precedents, famous that the temple belief had been a registered establishment since January 23, 1974, and was entrusted with managing the temple and its property. The Court docket referenced a Civil Choose’s decree from 1989, which had already declared that the belief had lawful authority over the temple and its property, and that clergymen had no hereditary or proprietary declare.
The Court docket reiterated {that a} pujari has no possession rights, can’t declare possession over temple lands, and can’t deal with temple property as private or ancestral. Any such declare would quantity to mismanagement, making the pujari unfit to stay in service. It added, “It’s pertinent to say right here that if the Pujari claims proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it’s an act of mismanagement and he isn’t match to stay in possession or to proceed as a Pujari.”
The Court docket additionally discovered that the current petitioner was not a occasion within the unique proceedings earlier than the Board of Income. The revision had been filed by a distinct entity. The Court docket held that the present petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition and problem the BoD’s choice.
The Excessive Court docket discovered no benefit within the petition and dismissed it, stating that the Board of Income had handed a well-reasoned and legally sound order.
Trigger Title: Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee v. Vindhyavasini Mandir Belief Samiti, [2025:CGHC:29861]
