Temple Property Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Revenue Records Correction in Favor of Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust

The case of Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust v. Balakrishna Bhat (Deceased) By LRs. & Others revolved around a dispute concerning the ownership and revenue record entries of a temple property in Karnataka. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in setting aside the decision of revenue authorities and lower courts that had confirmed the correction of land records in favor of the temple.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant temple trust, restoring the revenue entries in its name and reversing the Karnataka High Court’s order. The judgment reaffirms the principles of temple property management and limits wrongful claims of tenancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute pertained to Survey No. 68/2001, a four-gunta agricultural land in Avarsa village, Karnataka. The case had a long history involving multiple proceedings before revenue authorities and courts.

The key legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Was the High Court justified in reversing the correction of revenue records that had deleted the name of the respondents?
• Did the respondents have any valid claim to tenancy or ownership rights over the suit property?
• Were the revenue authorities right in rectifying the land records to restore the temple trust as the rightful owner?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust)

• The suit property has been part of the temple’s assets, and no tenancy rights were ever created in favor of the respondents.
• The revenue records erroneously included the name of the respondents due to misrepresentation, and the correction made by the Tehsildar and subsequent authorities was legally valid.
• The respondents had filed Form 7 under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, seeking occupancy rights, but the Land Tribunal rejected their claim in 1981.
• The Assistant Commissioner also confirmed in 2000 that the land did not fall under tenancy laws and should remain under the temple’s ownership.
• The High Court wrongly presumed the respondents had valid rights merely because they had constructed a house on the disputed land in 1994.

Arguments of the Respondents (Legal Heirs of Balakrishna Bhat)

• Their father, Balakrishna Bhat, was the archak (priest) of the temple and was in possession of the land since 1969.
• They constructed a house on the land with permission from the Panchayat and had been living there since 1994.
• Their predecessor’s name was recorded in the revenue records for decades, creating a presumption of lawful possession under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
• Their names should continue in the land records as tenants or possessors, as they had no alternative residence.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

1. Validity of Revenue Records Correction

“The revenue authorities acted in accordance with law in rectifying the revenue records, removing the names of the respondents, and restoring the temple trust’s ownership.”

The Court upheld the Tehsildar’s order of 21.05.2003, which was later confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (30.07.2005) and the Deputy Commissioner (23.03.2006).

2. Rejection of Tenancy Claim

“The respondents’ predecessor had himself admitted before the Land Tribunal in 1981 that he was not cultivating the land and had mistakenly filed Form 7.”

The Court found that once a tenancy claim is rejected by the Land Tribunal, it cannot be revived unless appealed within the legal timeframe.

3. Construction of House Does Not Confer Ownership

“Mere construction of a house on temple land does not create ownership or tenancy rights. The respondents’ claim is legally unsustainable.”

The Court ruled that the respondents had no legal basis to claim ownership simply because they had built a structure on the land.

4. Role of Temple Management in Protecting Its Property

“The deity in a Hindu temple is a juristic person, and the temple trust, through its trustees, is duty-bound to safeguard temple property.”

The Court cited the principle from Bishwanath v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji, holding that priests and caretakers cannot usurp temple property for personal gain.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and ruled that:

• The revenue records correction in favor of Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust was legally valid.
• The respondents had no valid tenancy or ownership rights over the suit property.
• Their occupancy and construction of a house did not entitle them to claim ownership.
• The temple trust’s ownership of the disputed land was reaffirmed.

Impact of the Judgment

• Protects Temple Lands from Encroachment: Ensures that temple property cannot be misused by priests or caretakers.
• Clarifies Tenancy Laws: Reiterates that tenancy claims must be proven through valid documentation and upheld by the Land Tribunal.
• Strengthens Role of Revenue Authorities: Confirms that Tehsildars and Deputy Commissioners have the authority to correct wrongful entries in revenue records.
• Upholds Rights of Religious Institutions: Reinforces the temple trust’s legal authority to manage and protect its properties.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that temples and religious institutions retain control over their properties and that false claims to tenancy or ownership are not entertained by the courts.

Petitioner Name: Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust.
Respondent Name: Balakrishna Bhat (Deceased) By LRs. & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Avarsa, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 17-09-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Sri Ganapathi Dev Te vs Balakrishna Bhat (De Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category