TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded in the name of the temple then the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the temple is a private property. The name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari of the temple not as an owner of the land and temple. Initially the name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari which was replaced by the name of Ganeshlal and thereafter in the year 1974 the name of the Collector had been recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not file any document to demonstrate that the name of his fore fathers was ever recorded as Bhumiswami. The plaintiff has successfully proved his possession over the suit land and his status as Pujari by way of oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5. Therefore, the learned appellate Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the temple and the land is a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors. The plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the temple and land. Hence, findings recorded in sub-para (1) and (2) of Para 25 are perverse and liable to be set-aside. In the case of THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SWAMITI [ 2015 (8) TMI 1514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , the Division Bench of this Court has held that the name of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the name of Collector has been written as Manager of the land and temple. 3. After notice in the suit, the defendants filed the written-statement refuting the averments made in the plaint by submitting that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land as well as temple. The name of the Collector has been recorded as a Manager in the year 1974 which has not been challenged by the plaintiff and has become final. The Government is having right under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code [in brief the Code ] to initiate the proceedings. The suit is not maintainable under Section 257 (2) of the Code. The Government is having right to remove the Pujari and give the land for cultivation by way of auction. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed 4 issues on 23.09.1996. The Issue No.1 was framed whether the suit land is a private property of the plaintiff ? 5. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined Krishnarao Chorase, Tracer, an employee of PWD as PW-1; Veernarayan Sharma, working as Assistant Grade- II in Tehsil Office of Sardarpur as PW-2; Nandram s/o Dhannaji being local resident as PW-3; Manaji s/o Ranchhod being local resident as PW-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and P/7. In all these revenue records, the land is recorded in the name of Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Bhagwandas. Therefore, in revenue register the suit land/property neither recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiff or in the name of the Government. The land is recorded in the name of Mandir. The plaintiff has sought the relief in the plaint that a decree of declaration be passed that the property is neither the property of Okaf Department nor the Government and the advertisement is void and illegal and the defendants be restrained not to put the land on auction. The plaintiff had also challenged that the entry by which the name of Collector was recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not claim the relief that he be declared owner of the temple and the land. Despite that the learned Trial Court has casted the burden on plaintiff to prove his ownership. Admittedly the land is recorded in the name of the temple then the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the temple is a private property. The name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari of the temple not as an owner of the land and temple. Initially the name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari which was replaced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by executive instructions. There was no justification on the part of the State Government to advice to Revenue Commissioner to follow circular dated 21.03.1994, when the same was quashed. It is not in dispute that as per Clause 5 of the Land Records Manual in Column No. 3 of Khasra Entries deals with the name of occupier; Column No. 4 deals with name of bhoomiswami or lessees or his representatives while Column No. 12 deals with the remarks. Undisputedly, the land, which is owned by the temple or deity or the land owned by temple or by the trust, name of the deity/temple or trust, as the case may be, is required to be mentioned in Column No. 3. If the temple is managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down by this Court from time to time, his name is required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of deity. 11. The arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State of Madhya Pradesh has received a number of complaints that the Pujari whose name has been recorded in Khasra Entry, on the basis of the aforesaid Entries, they have alienated the property of the temple and to protect the interest of the property of the temple, circular dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
