Chhattisgarh (CG) High Court has given an important decision on the rights of the temple. The High Court has clarified in the decision that the priest can not be considered as ownership of the property of the temple.
The court said that the priest is a representative appointed only to worship the deity and to manage the limited religious (Religious) of the temple, not Swami. Explain that this decision was given by a single bench of Justice Bibhu Dutta Guru on the petition, which was filed by Murali Manohar Sharma, the priest of Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilimata Temple in Dhamtari district. Sharma had challenged the order of 3 October 2015 of Revenue Board, Bilaspur in the High Court, in which his revision petition was dismissed.
The controversy began when Murali Manohar Sharma applied before the Tehsildar demanding to record his name in the records of the temple trust. The Tehsildar issued an order in his favor, but the SDO canceled the order. Sharma appealed against this to Additional Commissioner Raipur, which was rejected. He then filed a revision petition in the Revenue Board, which was also rejected.
Sharma filed a petition in the High Court, arguing that the Tehsildar’s order was justified and other officials did not review the case correctly.
High court comments
The High Court said in its decision that the Vindhyavasini Temple Trust Committee is a duly registered institution from 23 January 1974 and is legally managing the property of the temple. The court, citing an old decision passed by Civil Judge, Class-2, Dhamtari on 21 September 1989, said that the Trust Committee can appoint any person as manager to oversee the property of the trust, but this does not mean that the person got ownership of the property.
The court also clarified that the priest is a “reception”, which is appointed for the worship related activities of the temple. If he does not perform his duties, this right can also be withdrawn. Therefore, the priest cannot be considered as the owner of the temple’s land or property.
This decision can prove to be a milestone for cases where disputes arise between priests and trusts over the property of the temple. The court made it clear that the right to religious service and ownership are different things and the priest is only a person appointed for service, not the owner.
