Case: Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr.Lrs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Ors

the Revenue entries were changed to that of the District Collector in view of the Administrative Order dated 12th April, 1974. According to the respondent¬State, the entry of the name of District Collector as Manager of the temple properties dated 12.04.1974 has been done pursuant to an order of the State Government in order to curb the mismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of the pujaris. When the name of the Collector has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974, Laxmandas did not make any objection during his life time on deletion of his name. Despite the plaintiff claiming right to the property based on the Revenue entries no grievance had been raised at any given time earlier to the filing of the present suit. Even in the suit presently filed the grievance made is with regard to the auction dated 29th April, 1992 and the suit itself was instituted in 1996. 7. As against the contentions put forth by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contending right of the plaintiff over the property, the learned counsel for the respondent, in addition to pointing out the conclusion reached by the lower appellate court as also the High Court has relied upon the judgment dated 27th February, 2019 (2019) 4 SCALE 302 Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. This Court in the said appeal was considering a similar claim put forth in respect of the property and had negatived the contention put forth therein and dismissed the appeal. What is necessary to be taken note at the outset is that in the said case the Shri Ram Mandir Indore was before this Court and the documents relied upon also referred to the status of the land and the right claimed by the Mandir. However, the claim as made to claim as a private temple was negatived. In fact, in the instant case as rightly observed by the lower appellate court the claim is not even by the temple or the deity but the individual has made claim over the property as if it is privately owned. In that background, the High Court has also taken note that no document has been relied upon by the plaintiff to claim ownership over the property 8. The learned senior counsel on being confronted with the above aspects has contended that even if in the absence of documents of title, when the Revenue entries were to be changed to the name of the District Collector the same could not have been made based on Administrative Order dated 12th April, 1974 without giving opportunity to the person whose name is entered in the Revenue Registers. In that regard, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 6th October, 2016 passed in C.A.No.8554 of 2015 titled as State Government of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda and Ors. It is no doubt seen in the said judgment that this Court had adverted to the provision as contained in Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and keeping in view the provision had arrived at the conclusion that any change in the Revenue entry even to make correction of a wrong entry in the Khasra and any other land records, it can only be done by providing opportunity to the person in whose name the Revenue entry subsists and is sought to be corrected. 9. Notwithstanding the legal position in that regard cannot be disputed, the said judgment cannot be applied in abstract. We say so for the reason that in the instant case, as already noticed from the evidence as appreciated by the courts below including the High Court it is evident that no document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to establish his claim. Even the Revenue entry was not individually in the name of the plaintiff but was being claimed based on the entry of his fathers name with that of the temple. On the other hand, in the cited case, the temple itself was the plaintiff and was claiming the entries in their name for which the document relied upon was a registered gift deed dated 20th June, 1963. In that background, it could be assumed that the Revenue entries, if any, contained in the said case was in the background of reliance placed on the gift deed and it is in that backdrop the second substantial question of law relating to the compliance of issuing notice under Section 115 of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959 had arisen for consideration. The same was further in the background of the first substantial question of law that was raised therein relating to the status of the temple. In the instant case no substantial question in the contest of ownership has arisen. If that be the position the cited decision would not be of assistance to the appellant herein. 10. Referring to Bandobasti Khasra (Ex¬D1), the First Appellate Court held that Ex.-D1 is an important document in which the disputed land has been shown as Inam Devsthan and being of ownership of the temple and pujari has been shown as the Manager and later, the name of the District Collector, Dhar has been recorded and the said position has been continuing. Based upon the evidence, the First Appellate Court rightly held that mere statement of the plaintiff and Hari Singh-PW¬2, cannot prove the disputed temple as a private temple, the First Appellate Court held that in the Revenue record, the ancestors of the plaintiff has been shown only as Manager and this position has been shown in Ex.D-1 also. In that circumstance, in our considered view that as rightly observed by the High Court in S.A.No.274 of 2001, no substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had arisen for consideration. If that be the position no issue arises for consideration in the instant appeal as well.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the lower appellate court and the High Court, no document of title to acquire right and title over the land has been relied upon by the plaintiff. The evidence of Shri Hari Singh PW.2 is also to the said effect and has sought to assert that the people of the village go to the temple for darshan and offer pooja. That by itself does not prove the status of the land nor the ownership as claimed by the plaintiff. Bandobasti Khasra (Ex.D-1) has been produced by the respondent¬defendant as per which the disputed land had been shown as Inam Devasthan, being of the ownership of the temple and the pujari has been shown as the Manager6. Though the plaintiff had relied upon the Revenue entries which were marked in Exhibit P.Series, since we have already taken note that there is no document of title relied upon by the plaintiff, the Revenue entries are of no assistance since as per the well-established position of law the revenue documents do not create title. Even otherwise as stated in the evidence of the defendants, the entries initially were in the name of temple and none of the entries contained the name of the plaintiff. Though initially the name of the pujari in that background was indicated, the Revenue entries were changed to that of the District Collector in view of the Administrative Order dated 12th April, 1974When the name of the Collector has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974, Laxmandas did not make any objection during his life time on deletion of his name. Despite the plaintiff claiming right to the property based on the Revenue entries no grievance had been raised at any given time earlier to the filing of the present suit. Even in the suit presently filed the grievance made is with regard to the auction dated 29th April, 1992 and the suit itself was instituted in 1996In fact, in the instant case as rightly observed by the lower appellate court the claim is not even by the temple or the deity but the individual has made claim over the property as if it is privately owned. In that background, the High Court has also taken note that no document has been relied upon by the plaintiff to claim ownership over the property9. Notwithstanding the legal position in that regard cannot be disputed, the said judgment cannot be applied in abstract. We say so for the reason that in the instant case, as already noticed from the evidence as appreciated by the courts below including the High Court it is evident that no document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to establish his claim. Even the Revenue entry was not individually in the name of the plaintiff but was being claimed based on the entry of his fathers name with that of the temple. On the other hand, in the cited case, the temple itself was the plaintiff and was claiming the entries in their name for which the document relied upon was a registered gift deed dated 20th June, 1963. In that background, it could be assumed that the Revenue entries, if any, contained in the said case was in the background of reliance placed on the gift deed and it is in that backdrop the second substantial question of law relating to the compliance of issuing notice under Section 115 of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959 had arisen for consideration. The same was further in the background of the first substantial question of law that was raised therein relating to the status of the temple. In the instant case no substantial question in the contest of ownership has arisen. If that be the position the cited decision would not be of assistance to the appellant herein10. Referring to Bandobasti Khasra (Ex¬D1), the First Appellate Court held that Ex.-D1 is an important document in which the disputed land has been shown as Inam Devsthan and being of ownership of the temple and pujari has been shown as the Manager and later, the name of the District Collector, Dhar has been recorded and the said position has been continuing. Based upon the evidence, the First Appellate Court rightly held that mere statement of the plaintiff and Hari Singh-PW¬2, cannot prove the disputed temple as a private temple, the First Appellate Court held that in the Revenue record, the ancestors of the plaintiff has been shown only as Manager and this position has been shown in Ex.D-1 also. In that circumstance, in our considered view that as rightly observed by the High Court in S.A.No.274 of 2001, no substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had arisen for consideration. If that be the position no issue arises for consideration in the instant appeal as well.