Pujari Not Landowner, Can’t Claim Temple Property: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that a pujari (priest) is not the owner of temple land and cannot claim proprietary rights over it.

Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee challenging the authority of the Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti to manage the affairs of the temple and its land.

The bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while hearing the matter, underscored that a pujari is merely a grantee with the limited duty of offering prayers and managing temple rituals. “The law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi...He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami,” the court said, clarifying the legal distinction between religious service and property ownership.

In 2003, an order was issued by the Tahsildar of Dhamtari, who had directed that the petitioner’s name be entered into the land records of the temple trust. That order was overturned by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), and the petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were also rejected.

The petitioner then approached the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the Board of Revenue’s 2015 order. However, the court observed that the petitioner body was not even a party to the original proceedings before the Board and hence lacked legal standing to maintain the writ.

More critically, the court referred to a 1989 judgment by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhamtari, which had conclusively declared the Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti as a duly registered body since 1974, entrusted with managing the temple's affairs. That judgment had attained finality and was never challenged before a higher court.

The single judge bench emphasized that temple properties are not ancestral or personal properties of pujaris, and any attempt by a priest to claim ownership is an act of mismanagement.

“If the Pujari claims proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it is an act of mismanagement, and he is not fit to remain in possession or to continue as a Pujari," the court noted.

Court concluded that merely possessing a lease or patta does not entitle the petitioner to assert ownership or control over temple assets. The lease granted in 1985 was already subject to the civil court's decision from 1989.

Finding no merit in the petitioner’s arguments, the high court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the challenge was sans substratum.

Case Title: Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee vs. Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti

Download judgment here