Mandir Shri Gopalji Maharaj Village Pandola And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors

(1) Present intra-court appeal preferred u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005,

assails the final order of learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2020 passed in WP.28141/2019 by which learned Single Judge while exercising writ

jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution dismissed the petition in question in terms of order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Apex Court in Shri Ram

Mandir, Indore Vs. State of M.P. and others [2019 SCC Online SC 285].

(2) The challenge before the learned Single Judge in writ petition was to orders Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4 and circular Annexure P-5 whereby a

committee comprising of 11 members including the Chairman being SDO (R), Sheopur (M.P.) was constituted for managing the affairs of Shri

Radhamohan Ji Banke Quila Temple at Sheopur in terms of the executive instructions of Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.02.2019. Further

challenge was made to the Executive Instructions dated 30.01.2019, Annexure P-5, delineating the duties of the Collector of every district to secure

the properties and to take care of the management and day to day activities of the temples situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3) Learned Single Judge dismissed the prayer made by relying upon the decision of Shri Ram Mandir, Indore (supra) where inter alia it is held:

“26. Plaintiff Ram Das himself got the land in the year 1985-86 on lease for Rs.860/- from the Government and in this respect, he has signed on

the order sheet in case No.93B/121-85-86. An amount of Rs.600/- was deposited on 31.07.1986. Thereafter, in the year 1986-87, pujari Ram Das got

the lease renewed for one year at Rs.860/-out of which he has deposited Rs.460/- on 11.11.1987 for which a receipt has been issued to pujari Ram

Das. The fact that the appellant having taken the Mandir lands on lease from the Government clearly shows that the properties were never owned by

the pujaris in their individual capacity. Having taken the Mandir property on lease from the Government, the appellant is estopped from denying that

the temple properties are under the management and control of the Government. The suit lands have been given in the name of Shri Ram Mandir and

few other lands in the name of Ganesh Mandir for the arrangement of pooja, archana, naivedya, etc. for the public temple and the pujari has no right

to interfere in the management of these lands as his status is only that of pujari.â€​

(4) Though the petitioner was not represented before the learned Single Judge but learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/appellant before this Court

is unable to persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by learned Single Judge especially in the face of law laid down by the

Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram Mandir, Indore (supra).

(5) Consequently, this Court declines interference and dismisses the present appeal, sans cost.