The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that 42 hectares of agricultural land attached to a 200-year-old Shri Ganeshji Temple in Ashoknagar belongs to the deity, not the priest. In a significant second appeal pending since 2006, a single bench overturned the decisions of lower courts and declared the entire land as property of the state’s Mafi Auqaf Department. The priest’s claim of personal ownership has been rejected. Temple property belongs to the deity, says Court The state government argued before the High Court that temple property legally belongs to the deity, while the priest serves only as a caretaker or servant. Government lawyers stated that land records clearly show the property registered in the name of the Mafi Auqaf Department. They emphasised that the priest’s role is limited to performing rituals and religious duties. Claiming temple property as private ownership, they argued, is improper. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, delivering the judgment, clarified that both the temple and its associated property will remain vested in the state government. Government to manage temple affairs The court further ruled that the responsibility for managing the temple and appointing the priest will rest with the state government. The case concerns 42 hectares of agricultural land located across three villages: The priest had claimed that the temple and its land were inherited by his ancestors around 200 years ago, arguing that it was a private temple. On this basis, lower courts had earlier ruled in his favour. No proof of inheritance submitted However, the High Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments stating that a deity is considered a legal person under Indian law and holds ownership of temple property. A priest or manager does not have ownership rights over such property. Priest Bhalchand Rao presented an old licence related to the installation of a new idol, but the court found that he failed to provide solid evidence proving inheritance or ownership. The High Court observed that declaring the temple as private property would go against the interests of the deity. As no valid proof of succession or ownership was produced, the priest’s claim was dismissed. Post navigation Traffic Inspector suffers burns while stopping statue burning in Maihar:Incident occurred while police were trying to stop the protest against Kailash Vijayvargiya Stone pelting as aarti and azaan held together:Mob drags two from temple, victim says 50-70 came from mosque, 15 detained
