MP High Court: State Has No Role in Managing Private Temples, Collector Cannot Be Named Manager in Revenue Records

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a Collector’s order constituting a five-member committee to manage a private Shiv temple, directing the Chief Secretary to implement Supreme Court guidelines on temple management across all districts of the State.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has held that the State government has no role in the management of private temples and that the name of a Collector or Pujari cannot be entered as manager or trustee in revenue records where a temple is private in character. Justice Deepak Khot, sitting singly, disposed of Writ Petition No. 9139 of 2011 on 24 April 2026, directing the Collector to re-examine whether the disputed Shiv temple at village Dunda Seoni is private or public, and directing the Chief Secretary to issue instructions to all District Collectors implementing the Supreme Court’s directions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222. The order addresses a recurring administrative practice of State authorities constituting management committees for temples without first determining their public or private character.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, described himself as the Sarvarakhar of a private Shiv temple at village Dunda Seoni. He submitted that the temple was constructed by one Bhawani Patel in Samvat 1913 and that around 14 acres of land were attached to it for the maintenance of the temple and for meeting the expenses of the Pujari. A deed was executed to this effect. The name of one Sumaran as Sarvarakhar was recorded in the record of rights for the year 1962–63, and the petitioner claimed that for four generations his family had been maintaining the temple from the income of that land.

On complaints made by some villagers, the Collector acting in his capacity as Registrar, Public Trust, directed an enquiry through the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar’s report dated 6 April 2011 found that the temple was approximately 200 years old and required renovation, and recommended auction of the attached land and constitution of a committee for managing temple affairs. Acting on that report, the Collector by order dated 13 May 2011 constituted a five-member committee for the maintenance and management of the temple.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that two of the five committee members were public servants who could not participate in the religious activities of the temple, and that the Collector had imposed a management scheme without first enquiring whether the temple was private or public in nature.

The Legal Question

The central question was whether the State, acting through the Collector as Registrar of Public Trusts, could constitute a management committee for a temple and recommend auction of its attached land without determining whether the temple was a public or private institution. A connected question was whether the name of the Collector or a Pujari could be entered in revenue records as manager or trustee of a private temple, and what rights, if any, a Pujari or Sarvarakhar holds over land attached to a deity.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Khot began with the revenue record. The land attached to the temple was recorded in the name of the deity. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a deity is treated as a minor and is always represented by a next friend. The court found no material on record to show that the land had been recorded as government land. The temple and the land attached to it had been settled by a private person.

The court drew extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222. That judgment had elaborated on the nature of land attached to a deity and the procedure for its management. The Supreme Court had held that once land is vested with the deity or temple, the State cannot have a right to auction the property of the temple. It had also affirmed the position in Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26, and Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250, that a Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi that is, a tenant in cultivation but holds land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management only. The Pujari is a grantee to manage the property of the deity; that grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to offer prayers and manage the land. The Pujari has no right to sell or mortgage the land.

The Supreme Court in Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti had further held that in the ownership column of revenue records, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, since the deity as a juristic person is the owner of the land. The name of the manager or priest is not required in the column of occupier. If the Pujari’s name is recorded in Column 12 (the remarks column), it will not affect the Pujari’s rights so long as he is performing his functions properly.

Justice Khot also relied on Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust v. Balakrishna Bhat, (2019) 9 SCC 495, which had affirmed that the deity in a Hindu temple is deemed to be a minor, and the Shebait, archaka, or manager acts as the guardian of the idol and conducts all transactions on its behalf. The archaka is obligated to act solely for the idol’s benefit. A sale made by the manager of the deity to a third party that is not for the necessity or benefit of the idol is not binding on the deity, and worshippers or persons assisting in management can apply to have such a sale set aside.

Applying these principles, the court held that appointment of a Pujari by the State is permissible only where a temple is recorded as a government temple or is registered with the Aukaf Department. In private temples, the government has no role. Where property of a private temple is mismanaged, any person interested in the temple or deity whether or not a worshipper can institute a suit on behalf of the deity as next friend. In cases of illegal encroachment over land of the deity, proceedings by a next friend under the M.P. Land Revenue Code for removal of encroachment can be instituted, and the competent authority should dispose of such matters on a priority basis.

The court also noted that where a deity is installed in a private house or on private property, the occupier or caretaker of the temple, or the person who settled the land including legal representatives should be given due preference in management of the temple and attached property.

The Collector’s order of 13 May 2011 had constituted a five-member committee without first determining whether the temple was private or public. That foundational enquiry had not been conducted. The court found the impugned order unsustainable in the light of the settled legal position.

Directions Issued

Justice Khot disposed of the petition with three specific directions.

The Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to implement the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222, by issuing instructions to all Collectors of all districts of Madhya Pradesh.

All Collectors were directed to examine the status of temples as public or private strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti, and to conduct an enquiry as and when a dispute arises.

Respondent No. 1 the Collector acting as Registrar, Public Trust was directed to examine the dispute raised by the petitioner in the light of the above directions and to determine whether the temple is private or not within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 9139 of 2011 was disposed of on 24 April 2026 by Justice Deepak Khot of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The impugned order dated 13 May 2011 constituting a five-member management committee for the Shiv temple at village Dunda Seoni was set aside. The Collector was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the public or private character of the temple within three months. The Chief Secretary was directed to issue State-wide instructions to all District Collectors implementing the Supreme Court’s directions on private temple management.