2018 (2) TMI 2019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it land"]. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is registered in the revenue records in the name of private temple and the plaintiff is in possession from the period of his fore fathers i.e. generation to generation. After abolition of Jagirdari on 04.12.1952 and 15.08.1950, the ancestors of the plaintiff are in possession and become Bhumiswami. At present the plaintiff is cultivating the land and taking the crops. The said temple is neither a Government temple nor a temple of Okaf Department being a public temple. The defendants issued an advertisement on 10.06.1994 inviting applications for for giving the suit land by way of auction for the year 1993-94. The aforesaid advertisement gave a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff had also challenged the revenue entries in 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial court which had partially decreed the suit ? 2. In view of documents filed by the plaintiff in support of his case, whether lower appellate court was justified in holding in plaintiff's favour that the Temple in question is a private Temple and that it belongs to plaintiff ? 3. Whether plaintiff was able to substantiate his adverse possession thereby able to discharge his burden to claim ownership ?" 11.  As per pleading in the plaint, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land from the period of his fore fathers. The plaintiff has stated that the agricultural land is recorded in the name of temple being a private property and he is in possession since the period of abolition of Jagirdari and the temple and the suit land are not the Government property. In respect of his claim, the plaintiff filed certified copies of Kishtbandi Khatoni as Exs.P/5, P/6 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 na....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h (Bench at Gwalior) relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (AIR 1992 SC 1239) and decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas (AIR 1972 MP 14) directed the State Government that name of Pujari be deleted from the columns of Khasra and should not be recorded anywhere, because the same is bad in law. 9. The State of Madhya Pradesh is not satisfied with the quashment of three circulars i.e. circulars dated 12.04.1974, 12.11.1992 and 21.03.1994, issued another circular dated 07.06.2008, which is subject matter of the present writ appeal. 10. The learned Writ Court relying on the decision of the cases of State of MP & others v. Ghanshyamdas & others v. (supra), Kanchaniya v. Sheoram (supra) and Pancham Singh v. Ramkishandas (supra) has held that right of Pujaris continued from their forefather, cannot be taken away 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly allowed. The Question of Law No.2 is answered in favour of the appellant by setting-aside the finding that the land and temple are a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors and upheld the findings recorded in sub-paras 24 and 25 of the judgment of appellate Court so far as it relates to the deleting the name of Collector as a Manager from the revenue records and restraining the Collector to put the land for auction. 14.  The appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly. ============= Document 1 "(25) पूर्वगामी आनुशीलन के आधार पर दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य मौखिक साक्ष्य व न्याय दृष्टांतो के आधारो पर में निम्न निष्कर्ष पर पहुता हॅू ....