SHRIKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment shall govern the disposal of all these appeals which are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.1994 of learned Single Judge passed in WP No. 1311/94 whereby WP Nos. 1310/94, 1309/94, 1307/94, 1308/94, 1306/94, 1327/94, 1326/94 have been disposed off.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that the petitioners in all those petitions filed different petitions with the averments that they are Pujaris of Temple and the land attached to the Temple were given to them in Inam, Consequently they acquired right of Bhoomiswami under the provisions of section 158 of MP Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code'). They are continuously in possession of the land, their names were recorded, as Bhoomiswami along with the Collector of the District. However, Government of MP by an executive order Annex. P -5 directed for removal of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records with a further direction that the Collector of the District be incorporated as 'Manager'. It was further contended that this is contrary to law and is a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 31A and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were neither given notice nor opportunity of hearing. Their rights are protected under section 195 of the Code and thereafter under section 158 of the Code. It was further asserted that the petitioners have acquired right and the same cannot be taken away by an executive order. Petitioners are entitled to be recognised and recorded as Bhoomiswami. It was, therefore, prayed that the executive order P -5 be quashed and their names should be allowed to continue as Bhoomiswami of the land. The respondent -State vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioners and submitted that the petition involves a question of title to the immovable property and that cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. It has also been submitted that order is of 1992 and, therefore, petition is not maintainable due to delay and laches. It has also been submitted that as alternative remedy of declaration of title by civil Court is available to the petitioners. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge has accepted the right to possession of petitioners but as the question of title is involved, declined to interfere and dismissed the petition with following 'directions:

(3.) WE have perused the records, documents and legal provisions, as submitted by learned counsel for parties.