Saturday, 6 May 2017

Whether ownership rights can be annulled on basis of executive instruction?

 From the aforesaid judgments, it is settled principle
of law that on the basis of the executive instructions
passed by the Government, the proprietary rights can
not be brought to an end and the right of ownership
which may be less than absolute ownership can only be
brought to an- end by due procedure of law and such
law has not been shown.
8. Learned counsel for the State could not distinguish
the order passed by this Court either on the facts or on
the law in the present case.
9. In view of the above submissions and taking into
consideration the facts of the present case and also the
law laid down by this court, the present petition is
allowed. The action of the respondents entering the
name of the Collector as Manager in the Revenue Record
is declared illegal and accordingly it is directed that the
name of the Collector as Manager in the revenue record
be deleted. However, the land which are attached to the
temple shall be governed by the law led down by the
Apex Court in the Case of Mst. Kanchaniya and ors.
Vs. Shiv Ram and Ors., 1992 Supp(2) SCC 250W.P. No. 
(supra) no third party right shall be created and the
land of the temple shall not be alienated, transferred in
any manner by the persons who are managing the
aforesaid land on behalf of the temple.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Writ Petition No. 7357 of 2014
Ranumal Sharma @ Ranu
V
The State of Madhya Pradesh

Dated:03.01.2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 (NOC)210 MP

With consent of both the parties the petition is
heard finally.
2. In the present petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a
direction to set-aside the entry the name of the
Collector as Manager of the Trust property of the
petitioner. It is also stated that it be declared that the
Collector can not be appointed as Manager with respect
to the petitioner's temple. W.P. No. 7357/2014 -:2:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that one Shri Jai Ram S/o Laxmi Ji Jhat, R/o Bhonkhedi,
executed a Tamseekhnama for looking after the temple
of Shri Ramchandra Ji & Shankar Ji Mandir of Bhonkhedi
in favour of petitioner, appointing him as Sarvakar for
installation of Idol of Ramchandra Ji & Shankar Ji. He
further submits that after his death his wife Ganga Bai &
Rukmani Bai were given this right and after the death of
these two wives it was to be looked after by his nephew
Shri Ramdeen S/o Dayaram Jhat who died sometime in
2004 and after him the petitioner was given this right as
per deed Annexure P-1. The grievance of the petitioner
is that, without given any show-cause notice or
opportunity of hearing, the respondents got entered the
name of Collector in the capacity of Manager of the
Private Trust. The copy of the Khasra entry is Annexure
P-2 and P3.
4 At the outset the counsel for the petitioner submits
that the present case is covered by the Judgment of this
Court passed in W.P. No. 234 of 2004 dated 05.05.2011
in which this Court has held that with respect to the
property of a private temple, the name of Collector can
not be inserted in the revenue entries as Manager of the
property. This court has passed the said judgment
relying on the earlier judgment passed by this Court
(Division Bench) in the Case of Sadashiv Giri &W.P. No. 7357/2014 -
Others Vs Commissioner, Ujjain and others, 1985
RN 317 and also the judgment of this Court (Single
Bench) in the case of Ghanshyamdas and others Vs.
State of M.P. and another, 1995 RN235.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits
that the name of Collector was entered into the khasra
entries as Manager on the basis of circular of the
Government.
6. After elaborate and extensive considerations, the
law has been laid down by this court in the judgments
mentioned (supra), this court passed following orders in
W.P. No. 234/2004 which is quoted as under:-
“In view view of the settled position the
action of the respondents cannot be
sustained in law and accordingly it is
directed that the name of the Collector as
Manager in the revenue record be deleted.
However, the lands which are attached to
the temple shall be governed by the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Mst.
Kanchaniya and ors. Vs. Shiv Ram and
Ors., 1992 Supp(2) SCC 250 . No third
party right shall be created and the lands of
the temple cannot be alienated, transferred
in any manner by the persons who are
managing the aforesaid land on behalf of
Temple.
With the aforesaid directions this
petition is finally disposed of.”
7. From the aforesaid judgments, it is settled principle
of law that on the basis of the executive instructions
passed by the Government, the proprietary rights can
not be brought to an end and the right of ownership
which may be less than absolute ownership can only be
brought to an- end by due procedure of law and such
law has not been shown.
8. Learned counsel for the State could not distinguish
the order passed by this Court either on the facts or on
the law in the present case.
9. In view of the above submissions and taking into
consideration the facts of the present case and also the
law laid down by this court, the present petition is
allowed. The action of the respondents entering the
name of the Collector as Manager in the Revenue Record
is declared illegal and accordingly it is directed that the
name of the Collector as Manager in the revenue record
be deleted. However, the land which are attached to the
temple shall be governed by the law led down by the
Apex Court in the Case of Mst. Kanchaniya and ors.
Vs. Shiv Ram and Ors., 1992 Supp(2) SCC 250W.P. No. 
(supra) no third party right shall be created and the
land of the temple shall not be alienated, transferred in
any manner by the persons who are managing the
aforesaid land on behalf of the temple.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition
is finally disposed of with no orders as to cost.
(Vijay Kumar Shukla)
 Judge

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment