Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No. 266 of 2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property is vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple.

2. Briefly stated case of the Appellant is as follows:

Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manager is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform pooja-archana and management of the temple since the time of his guru. Earlier to him, his Guru Shri Shiromani Das Ji and still earlier to him, his ancestor guru used to offer pooja-archana and has been in management of the temple. Case of the Appellant is that the temple is the private temple of which succession is by descendance according to the Rules of Guru Parampara. The suit property/agricultural land has been allotted for Shri Ram Mandir in Inam and in its name and the land is in possession of Shri Ram Mandir. The temple is a private temple and government has no right in the temple and no aid was given by the Government in the construction, maintenance and repair of the temple. The Respondents through an administrative order recorded the name of Respondent No. 3-District Collector as Manager of the temple without giving any notice to the Appellant which is in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of law. According to the Plaintiff, Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple and the government has no right to interfere in the administration of the temple and the possession and management of the suit lands. On 15.07.1988, Respondents No. 3 and 4-officers of Madhya Pradesh Government initiated proceedings for leasing out the disputed lands (Revenue Case No. 28B/121-87-88) and fixed 06.10.1988 as the date for auction for leasing of the temple properties and the same is without any right. The Plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for a declaration that: (i) Shri Ram Mandir at Indoukh is a private mandir and the State has no right to interfere in the management, pooja-archana and in the possession of the agricultural land; (ii) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-officials from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the Plaintiff.

3. The Respondent-State has filed the written statement contending that Shri Ram Mandir is not a private temple but is a public temple and that the status of the Plaintiff is merely of a pujari. The Deity of the temple is owner of agricultural land which has been given by the government for the purpose of performance of pooja-archana etc. and taking proper care and meeting the expenses of the temple. The status of the pujari is like a servant of the temple appointed by the government and he does not acquire any right in the property owned by the Deity of the temple. District Collector, Ujjain was recorded as Manager in the revenue ........