MP High Court: Government Cannot Interfere in Management of Private Temples; Collector’s Name Cannot Be Entered as Manager in Revenue Records
In a significant ruling strengthening the autonomy of private religious institutions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State Government has no role in the management of private temples and that the Collector cannot be shown as manager or administrator in revenue records merely because land stands in the name of the deity. The judgment was delivered by Justice Deepak Khot in Ramakant Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 1737 of 2011).
The dispute concerned agricultural land purchased by the petitioner’s father in 1934. Although the petitioner’s family had remained in possession for decades, the Collector’s name was inserted in the revenue records in 1985 as the administrator of the property. After revenue authorities initially ordered removal of the Collector’s name, subsequent appellate and revisional authorities restored the earlier entry, prompting the writ petition before the High Court.
The State defended the Collector’s entry by relying upon old government circulars providing that, in certain cases, the Collector’s name could be recorded as manager of temple lands. It argued that the property belonged to a temple and had historically been recorded in the name of the deity, with the petitioner’s predecessor functioning only as a manager (Sarvarakar).
After examining the record, the High Court observed that the land was indeed recorded in the name of the deity and reiterated the settled legal principle that a Hindu deity is a juristic person capable of owning property. Since the deity is treated in law as a perpetual minor, its affairs are managed by a shebait, pujari or caretaker, who acts only in a representative capacity and does not acquire ownership over the temple property.
The Court placed extensive reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Evam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, which held that a pujari is merely the manager of temple property and cannot claim ownership or Bhumiswami rights. The High Court noted that while executive instructions may supplement statutory provisions, the revenue records should ordinarily record only the name of the deity as owner, and there is no legal requirement to record either the pujari or the Collector as owner or occupier.
Importantly, the High Court reiterated an earlier decision holding that the Government has no role in managing private temples. It clarified that the State may appoint pujaris or exercise administrative control only in relation to government temples or institutions governed by statutory provisions. In respect of private temples, neither the Collector nor the State can assume management merely because the property is dedicated to a deity. Where mismanagement is alleged, any interested person or worshipper may institute appropriate legal proceedings on behalf of the deity before the competent civil court.
The Court also distinguished the petitioner’s claim of private ownership from the issue of temple management. Since the property had long stood recorded in the name of the deity, the question whether the land was genuinely private property or dedicated temple property involved disputed questions of title that could only be decided through a civil suit and not in writ proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the orders of the Tehsildar, Collector, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. It directed the Collector, Jabalpur, to determine within three months whether the temple is a private temple. If it is found that the land belongs to the deity, only the deity’s name shall remain recorded as Bhumiswami, the Collector’s name shall not continue in the revenue record, the land shall not be transferred to any third party, and it shall be used exclusively by the manager, pujari or caretaker for the maintenance and welfare of the deity and the temple.
The judgment is expected to have substantial implications across Madhya Pradesh, particularly in disputes involving temple lands where revenue records continue to reflect the Collector as manager. It reinforces the constitutional autonomy of private religious institutions while safeguarding temple properties by recognising that ownership vests in the deity and that disputes concerning title or management must be resolved through the appropriate judicial process rather than executive intervention.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Ramakant Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1737 of 2011
Ramakant Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1737 of 2011
