Ordering the tehsildar concerned to re-register the land of the temple in the name of the temple, he was instructed by the collector to take possession of the said land and an FIR to be lodged against the coloniser and others involved in illegal constructions over the land, as per Tikamgarh collector’s order dated May 23, 2025.
Bhopal: In a significant decision collector, Tikamgarh district in Madhya Pradesh Vivek Shrotriya declared sale of a temple’s land as illegal and ordered lodging of a first information report with police against coloniser and others involved in illegal constructions over the land saying owner of the land was the deity of the temple and the title couldn’t be transferred to priests and their successors.
After the order the district administration swift into action to remove illegal constructions over the land pieces of which were reported to have been sold for several crores of rupees at different points of time.
The collector’s order came on May 23 after High Court which heard a petition filed by one Swadesh Rawat, a resident of Tikamgarh, directed the collector to decide the matter with a speaking order.
In his 12-page ruling as the presiding officer of the collector court Vivek Shrotriya relied on the tehsildar’ report and also High Court and Supreme Court’s judgments to give his verdict that the documents related to the land- 2.37 acre in Tikamgarh town were forged to drop the name of the temple and also word ‘priest’ so as to show ownership of the land in the individual names of the priests instead of the temple deity Shri 1008 Shri Bihari Ju.
NO ORDER TO DELETE TEMPLE NAME
Collector said in his order the documents suggested that the pieces of land (2.06 acre and 0.31 acre) were entered in the revenue record as in Samvat 2001 (Year 1944) by Orchha state in the name of priests Vrindavan, Parmeshwari Dayal and Har Vallabh for the management of the temple Shri Bihari Ju. Later, in Samvat 2015 (Year 1958) the temple name was deleted from revenue records. There is no note sheet regarding any order whereby the name of the temple was deleted.
As per the directory of the government temples Shri Bihari Ju temple is mentioned against serial number 19 with 5.839 hectare land in its possession and the government is using its funds for maintenance and renovation of the temple.
The collector’s order says, “There was no sale and purchase of the disputed land from the year 1944 to the year 2023, a period of 79 years, as people around believed that the land belonged to the temple. The land is priceless and situated in the main city.”
SALE OF LAND AFTER 79 YEARS
But in the year 2023, the heirs of the priest allegedly sold the said lands to some other person who started building an illegal colony on the said land and started selling plots.
Swadesh Rawat complained about this through a writ petition in the High Court, which was resolved there and received in the court of collector Tikamgarh in which instructions were given that the collector should pass a detailed speaking order.
The Collector passed the order using some provisions in law and judicial precedents of the High Court and the Supreme Court, in which the courts decided that when the name of a temple or an idol is registered as the landowner then the priest of the temple is not the owner of the land.
The collector said first of all the land was transferred in the name of the priests by illegally removing the name of the idol Shri Bihari Ju and the word ‘Pujari’ after which the names of their successors replaced their names.
TITLE VESTED IN IDOL OF SHRI BIHARI JU
“It’s clear that buyer Rajaram having purchased the entire land of Khasra nos. 768 and 769 constructed roads and drains on the land and sold the land having created small plots of land over there. However, he didn’t seek any permission to develop the land as a coloniser and sell it. There are two houses constructed and rest of the land is vacant. Examination of revenue documents suggests that the disputed land which was in the name of Shri Bihari Ju temple and vested in the idol of Shri Bihari Ju was sold after 2023 and an illegal colony is being developed over there”, said the collector in his order.
FIR ORDERED TO BE LODGED WITH POLICE
Thus, while ordering the tehsildar concerned to re-register the land of the temple in the name of the temple, he was ordered by the collector to take possession of the said land and an FIR to be lodged against the colonizer and others involved in illegal constructions over the land, as per the order.
While declaring all the ‘Namantaran’ (Transfer of titles) as null and void under sections 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 the collector has ordered that the said land is entered in revenue records in the name of Shri Bihar Ju Mandir Manager Collector, Tikamgarh. Thus, the priest or priests of the temple would cease to be manager(s) of the temple.
The judicial verdict in respect of the cases of certain temples and its land in Madhya Pradesh which are managed by the priest and referred to by the collector in his order are as follows:
- State of Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti
Case Number: AIR 2021 SC 367
Court: Supreme Court
Key Points:
The ownership of the temple land belongs to the deity, as the deity is considered a juristic person. The priest is only a servant or manager, he does not have the right of ownership. The name of the priest should neither be recorded as the owner nor as the occupant in the revenue records.
- Shri Ram Mandir, Indore vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5043/2009 (Decision: 27 February 2019)
Court: Supreme Court
Key Points:
The temple is a public temple, and the priest has no right of ownership over the property. It is appropriate to record the name of the collector as the manager for administrative purposes.
- Ramesh Das (deceased) vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Judgement date: 22 July 2019
Court: Supreme Court
Key Points:
Merely having the name recorded in the revenue records does not prove ownership. The priest is only the manager, the owner of the land is the deity.
- Kailash vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2905/2019
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Key Points:
The priest can neither be considered a landowner nor a government lessee. The priest uses the land only for running the temple.
- Bada Ram Mandir Jharda vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7987/2020
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Key Points:
The name of the deity/temple should be recorded as the owner in the revenue records. If the management is being done by the priest then his name can be mentioned only in the remarks column (Column 12).
- Mohandas Chele Amardas Mahant vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1119/2022
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Key Points:
The priest cannot get the status of a landowner. Inam or Mafi land is meant for temple management and not for private ownership.
