SENGHAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P -11) dated 11.9.2001, passed by the Collector, District Dewas.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the land in question as mentioned in the impugned order is recorded in the name of deity through Pujari as a manager. Petitioner is the lessee of the said Pujari. Subsequently, the name of the Collector was recorded as manager in the revenue record alongwith the name of Pujari. This fact is clear from the document, issued by the State Government and filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P -1. It is also not in dispute that alongwith the name of Pujari the name of Collector has been recorded in the revenue record with a view to protect the property of the deity. The said Manager/Pujari has granted a Patta for a period of 30 years to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the Pujari has no right to give the land of a deity on perpetual Patta for a period of 30 years. This action of Pujari is contrary to law and against the provisions of Section 168 of the MPLR Code. Therefore, by the impugned order the Collector has directed the Tahsildar to ascertain that the land should be auctioned and the auction amount be deposited in the account of the deity or the temple and the amount should not be utilized and in compliance of this order the Tahsildar issued notices to the petitioner vide Annexure P -12 and Annexure P -13.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Board it is clear that the Board has not recorded any finding in favour of the petitioner, but only directed to enquire into the matter. Admittedly, from the documents on record it is clear that in the revenue record the land in question is recorded in the name of Shree Dwarkadhish temple, Gujrat alongwith the name of the Pujari as manager. The name of Collector has also been entered with a view to protect the property of the deity. In the property of the deity the petitioner cannot claim any right of ownership. The Pujari was also not having any right to lease out the property for a period of 30 years to the petitioner, as an agreement of the Pujari is contrary to law and void. In fact, the Collector has rightly and legally passed the impugned order (Annexure P -11). The petitioner cannot claim any right over the said land under the provisions of law, in view of second proviso of sub -section (2) of Section 168 of the MPLR Code, the Collector has rightly ordered for its yearly auction, as the lease ceased to exist after one year.