Temple Ownership Dispute: Supreme Court Dismisses Claim Over Shri Ram Mandir Land

The case of Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr. LRs vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. revolved around a dispute concerning the ownership of Shri Ram Mandir and the land associated with it in Dedla Village, Dhar Tehsil. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appellant’s claim over the temple and its property as a private temple was legally valid.

The appellant, Ramesh Das, claimed that the temple was a private religious institution built by his forefathers and that the land associated with it was gifted by the former Jagirdar of the village. He filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a perpetual injunction to prevent the State from auctioning the land. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision. The High Court upheld the reversal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The appellant, represented by his legal counsel, contended:

“Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple built by the appellant’s forefathers, and its land was donated by the village Jagirdar. The appellant and his family have been the exclusive caretakers of the temple, and they are entitled to its ownership.”

The petitioners further argued:

• The temple land was gifted to the appellant’s ancestors by the village Jagirdar, making it a privately owned temple property.
• Revenue records initially recorded the name of the temple and the appellant’s father, Laxmandas, as the Manager. However, in 1974, the Collector’s name was entered as the Manager without due process.
• The auction of the land by the State was illegal and violated the appellant’s ownership rights.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh, representing the government, opposed the claim, stating:

“The temple is not a private entity but a public religious institution. The land belongs to the temple and is managed by the State to prevent mismanagement.”

The respondent further contended:

• The temple is categorized as a public religious institution, and its land is recorded as ‘Inam Devasthan’ in government records.
• The Revenue records do not confer ownership rights but merely indicate management responsibility.
• The Collector was recorded as the temple’s Manager in 1974 to prevent misuse of temple property by private individuals.
• The appellant failed to produce any legal document proving ownership over the temple land.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court, with Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna presiding, ruled against the appellant, stating that he failed to establish ownership over the temple land. The Court observed:

“No document of title was produced to prove ownership over the property. Revenue records do not create ownership rights, and the claim that the temple was private is unsupported by evidence.”

The Court ruled:

• The temple is a public religious institution, and its management by the State is justified.
• The appellant failed to provide any registered document proving that the land was gifted to his ancestors.
• Revenue entries showing the Collector as Manager were made in 1974, and no objections were raised at that time, weakening the appellant’s claim.
• The auction of the land by the State was valid, as the appellant did not have ownership rights.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Revenue records do not establish ownership but merely indicate management responsibilities.
• Public religious institutions cannot be claimed as private property without legal proof of ownership.
• Failure to challenge government actions at the appropriate time weakens subsequent legal claims.
• Temple lands must be managed transparently to prevent misuse by private individuals.

This ruling reinforces the principle that temples categorized as public religious institutions cannot be claimed as private property without substantial legal evidence, ensuring protection of religious assets from mismanagement.

Petitioner Name: Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr. LRs.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Dedla Village, Dhar Tehsil, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 22-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ramesh Das (Dead) Th vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-07-2019.pdf