RAMSWAROOP Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3/11/2018 and 4/4/2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Appeal No.138/17-18 and Review No.06/2019-20 respectively.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that in old Shivpuri a temple known as Shri Radhakrishna Ji is situated in survey nos.176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 233, 238, 239, 254, 256, 299, 233, 525, 526, 1554, 1579, 1580 and 1581 total area 19.16 hectare. It is submitted that the temple is situated on a Muafi land and the management of the same was handed over by the government to its Pujari. Intention of the State Government for handing over the agricultural land to the Pujari was that the Pujari of the temple should either himself cultivate the land or may get it cultivated by somebody else, so that he can meet out the expenses of maintenance of temple from its income. Earlier one Shri Gangadhar Yashwant Rao Shekdar was appointed as Pujari of the temple and after his death, Smt. Sita Bai W/o Shri Ramchandra Shekdar was appointed as Pujari of the temple and her name was also mutated in the revenue record and after her death, Shri Sudhakar Rao was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. Shri Sudhakar Rao expired on 29/1/2007 and after his death, Smt. Prabhavati Rao, who is wife of Sudhkar Rao, filed an application for her appointment as Pujari of the temple. The application was considered after conducting an enquiry and accordingly, by order dated 18/10/2017 Smt. Prabhavati Rao has been appointed as Pujari of the said temple. It is also mentioned in the writ petition that after the death of Sudhakar Rao and till the order dated 18/10/2017 was passed, Smt. Prabhavati was continuously performing her duties of Pujari and she was managing the movable and immovable properties belonging to the temple. It is further submitted that since Smt. Prabhavati is a widow lady and was all the time involved in performing Puja and, therefore, she was unable to cultivate the land belonging to the temple and, therefore, a part of the land was given to the petitioner as well as to other persons to cultivate the land of the temple and the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were allowed to take their share in the crops in the form of their labour charges. Meanwhile, the Tahsildar initiated the proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is in an unauthorized possession of the Muafi land and by ignoring the fact that in fact Smt. Prabhavati is in possession of the Muafi land and certain land was given by her to the petitioner for the purposes of cultivation. It is submitted that the Tahsildar by order dated 20/4/2017 imposed a fine of Rs.1,17,800/- as well as for removal of the encroachment. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar the petitioner filed an appeal which too has been dismissed by the SDO (Revenue) Shivpuri the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 3/11/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application which too has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior by order dated 4/4/2019.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact he has not encroached upon the land belonging to the temple, but in fact it was given on Adhiya by Smt. Prabhavati Shekdar and the petitioner after taking his share in the crop by way of labour charges used to give the same to Smt. Prabhavati Shekdar and in fact Smt. Prabhavati Shekdar was in possession of the Muafi land by virtue of her appointment as Pujari of the land. It is further submitted that the Pujari of the land belonging to the petitioner is the Manager of the land belonging to the temple and, therefore, the authorities have wrongly passed an order of removal as well as have wrongly imposed the fine by the impugned order. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kanchaniya and others vs. Shiv Ram and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1239 has held that Pujari is the Manager of property belonging to temple. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not granted opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, therefore, the principles of natural justice has been violated.