Case: STATE OF M.P.  Vs. MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH

1. The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of their second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed.

Reasoning:
6. It is not the case of the appellant that the plaintiff Temple stands recorded in the list of public temples prepared in 2013 for the District of Ujjain as noticed in Shri Ram Mandir Indore (supra). The lands have not been taken on lease by the Deity from the Government but from the erstwhile owner. Ramesh Das (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the ownership of the lands for a claim of a private temple was not being made in the name of the Deity but those physically in possession of the lands.7. In the present case the name of the Deity finds place in the revenue entries for the years 1969¬70, 1970¬71 and 1972¬73. The same is the position with regard to the revenue entries for 1973 to 1977. It is not the case of the appellants that the correction in the revenue entries in 1979¬80 was made in compliance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code.There is a concurrent finding by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the procedure not having been followed, the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and the Collector as the Manager thereof was unsustainable.