.^' PETITIONER/: (Applicant) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227t No.5580of2010 Somdatt, S/o Ramprasad Bramhan, Pujari, aged about 68 years R/o Village Than Khamhariya, DistrictDurg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Non-applicants) Vereas Shri Jagannath Mandir Swami Ji, Shri ShankarJi MandirSarwarakar, Shri Motilal, S/o Lakheshwar Prasad, Through Manager Collector, Durg, R/o Village Than Khamhariya, District Durg (C.G.) Presently residing at in front of Normal School, Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: A 3. Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. SudhirVamna, counsel for respondent No.1. W,i: Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.2 Sinnte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (12-7-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner haschallenged legality and propriety of the order dated 1-2-2010 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the State Government has affirmed the order of mutation in the name of respondent Shri Jagannath Mandir through its Sarvarakar Shri Motilal. 2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of other orders and documents. 3. Learned counsel for th6 petitioner submits thatadmittedly, the petitioner is pujari and he is not having any interest over the property but Motilal is not Sarvarakar of the Mandir Trust and, therefore, without following the due process of law recording the nameof Motilal asSarvarakar in therecord is not just and proper and by maintaining such order, the State Government has committed illegality. ].,^.!,^ -•-^ss!a»iaa^^ a,wtss!S3 .,s£-2iSSs "%. .tl'>';i'"'""1''1 '%. i iL...<..i:3;i'B1^ ,i i """*"" y /i ..-•/' i^' Y "tl8r:y E^i^^ \dy 4. On the other hand.learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and submits that Motilal is son of Lakheshwar Prasad who was initially Sarvarakarof the Mandir Trust and after death of Lakheshwar Prasad, name of Motilal has been recorded. By maintaining theorder bf mutation, the State Government has not committed any illegality. Learnedcounsel placed reliance in the matter of Karan Singh^.^State of M.P. and another {1994 RN 72 (High Court)} in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that long possession as pujari of the trustproperty does not give any right to the pujari. 5. The writ petition, copies oforders and.contentions of the parties reveal that the petitioner is pujari ofthe aforesaid temple and he cannot claim ownership or Sarvarakar-ship of the said temple. Documents further reveal that name of Motilal has been recorded as Sarvarakar onlyOritheground of death of Lakheshwar Prasad, earlier Sarvarakar, without following the procedure prescribed before getting the revenue record. Revenue authorities were under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed and after due publication and inquiry, name of Sarvafakarofllle Mandir Trust may be corrected on record, but it does not reveal such facts. Althoughttie petitioner herein is not having any claim of Sarvarakar, but the record reveals thatname of Motilal is corrected without following the procedure prescribed. 6. Consequently, the order impugnedsuffers from serious illegality and the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner and Motilal, the alleged Sarvarakar, are at liberty to file objection before the competent authority for declaration of Sarvarakar or mutation of their name in their own capacity. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 4 Sd/- l-P- Sharma ^ Judge M. lLij!iil;v