In a significant judgment that reiterates the legal position of religious functionaries in relation to temple property, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that a pujari (temple priest) does not acquire ownership or title rights over temple lands merely by virtue of being appointed or associated with temple management or religious service. The ruling emphasizes that the role of a pujari is restricted to the performance of religious duties and that any land or property granted to such a priest is merely to facilitate the discharge of those religious functions, without creating any proprietary interest in the land or property in question. This decision came in a case that revolved around the misuse of temple property and the attempt of an individual claiming rights as a pujari to assert ownership and control over temple land which had been recorded in revenue records.
The matter was brought before the High Court after the petitioner, who claimed to be the hereditary pujari of a temple, challenged the entries in revenue records that removed his name as a bhumiswami (landowner) from the disputed property. The petitioner contended that he and his ancestors had been in continuous possession of the temple land for religious purposes, and that their names had been recorded as bhumiswamis in earlier revenue records. He further argued that such long-standing possession, combined with the hereditary character of his appointment as pujari, created a vested right or title over the property.
In response, the State and other authorities maintained that the petitioner’s claim to ownership was not sustainable under law. They argued that the temple land in question was not the personal property of the petitioner or his family, but rather public or trust land, controlled by the government and intended solely for religious and charitable purposes. The State emphasized that any grant or land attached to the position of a pujari was part of a state-administered religious endowment and could not be converted into private ownership through prolonged possession or revenue entries. It was also argued that such land is essentially inalienable and should remain under public control, with the pujari merely acting as a grantee or beneficiary with limited rights.
The Division Bench of the High Court, after examining the historical evolution of law governing temple lands and religious endowments, referred to several precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts. It particularly relied on authoritative judgments which have consistently held that a pujari, despite being in charge of daily worship and rituals, does not have proprietary rights over the temple or its assets. The court stressed that the appointment as a pujari neither confers nor implies ownership over temple property. Instead, such appointments merely allow for the discharge of religious functions, with the management and ownership of associated lands or endowments remaining with the State or temple trust.
The court went on to observe that in many cases across the country, priests have tried to exploit their position by attempting to usurp temple property under the guise of religious or hereditary rights. The court warned against such practices and emphasized that allowing pujaris to claim ownership over temple lands would severely undermine the public and sacred nature of such institutions. It highlighted that religious properties, especially those governed under the respective Endowments Acts or Religious Trust Acts, are public in character and not to be privatized by individuals who are merely appointed to serve there.
Importantly, the court also discussed the role of revenue records and the weight they carry in establishing title or ownership. It noted that mere entries in revenue records cannot create or extinguish title unless they are backed by substantive rights recognized under law. The court held that in the present case, even though the petitioner’s name may have been recorded as bhumiswami in earlier documents, such entries were erroneously made and could not confer any valid title, particularly when the land in question belonged to a temple and was intended for public religious use.
Further, the High Court clarified that even if the petitioner had been in possession of the land for a prolonged period, that alone did not amount to adverse possession, as the essential element of “hostile possession” against the true owner—i.e., the deity or the temple trust—was absent. The court explained that possession by a pujari is never adverse to the temple or deity, as it is inherently permissive and for the performance of duties. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession or long-standing occupancy fails to stand in law when the possession is derivative or permissive in nature.
The court’s judgment reflects a firm stance in protecting temple assets from encroachments and private claims and reinforces the foundational legal principles that religious institutions and their properties are held in trust for the benefit of the public and devotees, not for the enrichment of individuals. It reiterated that the State has the responsibility to ensure proper management and safeguarding of temple lands, and that any irregularities in past revenue entries must be rectified to reflect the true legal status of such properties.
Finally, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea and upheld the State’s decision to correct the revenue records, thereby removing the petitioner’s name as bhumiswami and restoring the land to the control of the temple trust or the State authority managing religious endowments. The court also directed the relevant authorities to ensure that temple lands are not misused or transferred by individuals claiming false ownership and asked for strict vigilance in maintaining the public character of such properties.
This decision carries profound implications for temple administration across the State and potentially beyond, as it serves as a precedent to curb misuse and wrongful appropriation of religious lands. It places clear responsibility on the State to maintain transparency, legality, and public trust in the management of temple properties, while also providing clarity on the limited rights of pujaris, whose sacred duties are acknowledged but cannot be extended into claims of ownership.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.