Suit for Declaration and injunction - when the mutation of entiries in the name of collector with out following the procedure - the pujaries of the temple filed the suit on behalf of the temple - trial court dismissed - Appeal court allowed and decreed the suit -High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that the entry in the revenue record could not have been changed by the Tahsildar without holding a proper enquiry and giving an opportunity to the affected persons, namely respondents herein, in this regard. The suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming ownership to the lands received from Syed Mohammad Ali, Manager of the landlord Hakim situated in Village Kharsod Kalan, District Ujjain. The Pujaris did not lay any claim to ownership of the lands in them. The Temple was constructed by the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and enjoy the usufructs of the lands also. They were suddenly made aware of the correction made in column 3 of the land records in the year 1979­80 when the collector published notice for auction settlement of the lands, leading to the institution of the suit. the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the revenue entries for the years 1969­70, 1970­71 and 1972­73. The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for 1973 to 1977. The defence is that The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’ (Manager) which was done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”. It is not the case of the appellants that the correction in the revenue entries in 1979­80 was made in compliance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code. Section 115 reads as follows: “115. Correction of wrong or incorrect entry in land record­ (1) A Sub­Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on application of an aggrieved person, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, correct any wrong or incorrect entry including an unauthorised entry in the land records prepared under section 114 other than Bhoo­Adhikar Pustika and record of rights, and such corrections shall be authenticated by him: Provided that no action shall be initiated for correction of any entry pertaining to a period prior to five years without the sanction in writing of the Collector. (2) No order shall be passed under sub­section (1) without­ (a) getting a written report from the Tahsildar concerned; and (b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested: Provided that where interest of Government is involved, the Sub­Divisional Officer shall submit the case to the Collector. (3) On receipt of a case under sub­section (2), the Collector shall make such enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit.” There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed, the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector as the Manager thereof was unsustainable.

Suit for Declaration and injunction - when the mutation of entiries in the name of collector with out following the procedure - the pujaries of the temple filed the suit on behalf of the temple - trial court dismissed - Appeal court allowed and decreed the suit -High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that the entry in the revenue record could not have been changed by the Tahsildar without holding a proper enquiry and giving an opportunity to the affected persons, namely   respondents   herein,   in   this   regard.

The suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming ownership   to   the   lands   received   from   Syed   Mohammad   Ali, Manager   of   the   landlord   Hakim   situated   in   Village   Kharsod Kalan,  District  Ujjain.    
The  Pujaris  did  not  lay any claim to ownership of the lands in them.  The Temple was constructed by the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and enjoy the usufructs of the lands also.  
They were suddenly made aware of the correction made in column 3 of the land records in
the year 1979­80 when the collector published notice for auction settlement of the lands, leading to the institution of the suit. the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the revenue entries for the years 1969­70, 1970­71 and 1972­73. The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for 1973 to 1977.   
The defence is that The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the
name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’  (Manager) which was done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”.
It is not the case of the appellants that the correction   in   the   revenue   entries   in   1979­80   was   made   in compliance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   115   of   the   Code.
Section 115 reads as follows:
“115.   Correction of wrong or incorrect entry in
land record­ 
(1)   A   Sub­Divisional   Officer   may,   on   his   own
motion or on application of an aggrieved person,
after making such enquiry as he deems fit, correct
any   wrong   or   incorrect   entry   including   an
unauthorised entry in the land records prepared
under   section   114   other   than   Bhoo­Adhikar
Pustika and record of rights, and such corrections
shall be authenticated by him:
Provided   that   no   action   shall   be   initiated   for
correction of any entry pertaining to a period prior
to five years without the sanction in writing of the
Collector.
(2) No order shall be passed under sub­section (1)
without­
(a) getting a written report from the Tahsildar
concerned; and 
(b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties
interested:
Provided that where interest of Government is
involved,  the  Sub­Divisional  Officer  shall  submit
the case to the Collector.
(3) On receipt of a case under sub­section (2), the
Collector shall make such enquiry and pass such
order as he deems fit.”
There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed, the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which
the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector as   the   Manager   thereof   was   unsustainable.  


NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).956 OF 2010
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS   ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND
OTHERS         ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of
their second appeal.  The respondent filed a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal
was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed. 
2. Shri   Rahul   Kaushik,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,
submitted   that   respondent   no.1   was   a   public   Temple.   The
revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the
name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’  (Manager) which was
done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent
1
nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”.  Therefore, they had no right to
claim   ownership   of   the   Temple   lands,   much   less   have   their
names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against
interference.   The Temple being situated on government land
belonging to the Aukaf Department was a “Devsthani Muafi”.  The
Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands.  Reliance was
placed on an order dated 22.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of
2009  Ramesh   Das   (Dead)   thr.   Lrs.   vs.   State   of   Madhya
Pradesh  &   ors., and  Shri   Ram  Mandi   Indore   vs.   State   of
Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2019 (4) SCALE 302.
3.   Conversely Shri Randhir Singh Jain, learned counsel for
the respondents, submitted that the Pujaris never claimed any
ownership rights in themselves to the lands.  The lands belonged
to   the   Deity   gifted   by   Syed   Mohammed   Ali,   Manager   of   the
landlord   Hakim.     The   Deity   was   in   peaceful   possession   and
enjoyment of the lands since very long.  Puja was being done by
the Pujaris on basis of the income of the Temple. The unilateral
correction in the land revenue entries as late as 1979­80, by
recording the collector as ‘Manager’ was in complete violation of
the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh
2
Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) as
concurrently   held   by   the   First   Appellate   Court   and   the   High
Court.   Reliance was placed on an order dated 06.10.2016 in
Civil Appeal No. 8554 of 2015 “State Government of Madhya
Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.”.
4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties
and perused the materials relied upon by the counsel for the
parties as also the precedents cited.
5. The suit was filed by the Deity through the Pujaris claiming
ownership   to   the   lands   received   from   Syed   Mohammad   Ali,
Manager   of   the   landlord   Hakim   situated   in   Village   Kharsod
Kalan,  District  Ujjain.    The  Pujaris  did  not  lay any claim to
ownership of the lands in them.  The Temple was constructed by
the forefather of the Pujaris, who continued to perform puja and
enjoy the usufructs of the lands also.  They were suddenly made
aware of the correction made in column 3 of the land records in
the year 1979­80 when the collector published notice for auction
settlement of the lands, leading to the institution of the suit.
There   is   no   material   on   record   with   regard   to   any   alleged
mismanagement of the temple which required it to be taken over
3
by the Collector.   On the evidence on record, the respondents
plaintiffs have been held to be  Maurusi Krishaks  of the lands.
Column 3 records their occupation, while the ownership stands
in the name of the Deity.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that the plaintiff Temple
stands recorded in the list of public temples prepared in 2013 for
the District of Ujjain as noticed in  Shri   Ram  Mandir   Indore
(supra).   The lands have not been taken on lease by the Deity
from the Government but from the erstwhile owner.   Ramesh
Das (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the ownership
of the lands for a claim of a private temple was not being made in
the name of the Deity but those physically in possession of the
lands.
7. In the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the
revenue entries for the years 1969­70, 1970­71 and 1972­73.
The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for
1973 to 1977.   It is not the case of the appellants that the
correction   in   the   revenue   entries   in   1979­80   was   made   in
compliance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   115   of   the   Code.
Section 115 reads as follows:
4
“115.   Correction of wrong or incorrect entry in
land record­ 
(1)   A   Sub­Divisional   Officer   may,   on   his   own
motion or on application of an aggrieved person,
after making such enquiry as he deems fit, correct
any   wrong   or   incorrect   entry   including   an
unauthorised entry in the land records prepared
under   section   114   other   than   Bhoo­Adhikar
Pustika and record of rights, and such corrections
shall be authenticated by him:
Provided   that   no   action   shall   be   initiated   for
correction of any entry pertaining to a period prior
to five years without the sanction in writing of the
Collector.
(2) No order shall be passed under sub­section (1)
without­
(a) getting a written report from the Tahsildar
concerned; and 
(b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties
interested:
Provided that where interest of Government is
involved,  the  Sub­Divisional  Officer  shall  submit
the case to the Collector.
(3) On receipt of a case under sub­section (2), the
Collector shall make such enquiry and pass such
order as he deems fit.”
8. There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court
and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed,
the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which
the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector
as   the   Manager   thereof   was   unsustainable.     In  State
5
Government   of   Madhya   Pradesh   vs.   Narsingh   Mandir,
Chikhalda (supra), this court observed:
“Be that as it may, the appeal of the respondents
warranted   to   be   succeeded   on   the   substantial
question of law No.2 itself, inasmuch as, the entry
in the revenue record could not have been changed
by the Tahsildar without holding a proper enquiry
and giving an opportunity to the affected persons,
namely   respondents   herein,   in   this   regard.
Therefore, the judgment of the High Court can be
sustained   on   that   ground   alone.   Needless   to
mention, it will always be open to the concerned
authority   to   follow   the   procedure   under   Section
115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to take
further action, if any.
The   appeal   is   dismissed   with   the   aforesaid
observations.”
9. We   therefore   find   no   merit   in   the   present   appeal.     The
appeal is therefore dismissed but with similar observations as
aforesaid.
.………………………. J.
                                                        (Navin Sinha)         
………………………. J.
             (Sanjiv Khanna) 
New Delhi,
October 25, 2019
6