A deity’s status as a perpetual minor does not shield its land from adverse possession claims, the Orissa High Court has held, while still dismissing a family’s claim to temple land because their long possession began as permissive annual tenancy.
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has ruled that the courts below were wrong to hold that no adverse possession claim can lie against a deity’s property because the deity is a perpetual minor, but has upheld their rejection of the claim over land belonging to Maa Sureswari Devi of Sonepur on the independent ground that hostile possession was never proved [Ghuturam Bagh (Dead) by his LRs v. Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar & Anr.].
Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi delivered the judgment on October 30, 2026 in RSA No. 256 of 2006, a second appeal pending for two decades.
The case
The plaintiff said his father had held the suit land for over fifty years and that he continued in possession after his father’s death, claiming occupancy rights. When the settlement authorities refused to record the land in his name, he filed T.S. No. 87 of 2001. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur dismissed the suit in February 2005, and the Additional District Judge, Sonepur upheld that decision on March 25, 2006 in R.F.A. No. 14 of 2005.
Both courts held that no adverse possession claim could be made against a deity, a perpetual minor, and that an annual lease-holder in permissive possession could not claim title by adverse possession.
The perpetual minor point
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, the High Court found the legal premise of the courts below erroneous:
“In M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, the Constitution Bench expressly rejected the contention that a deity stands exempted from limitation merely because it is described as a perpetual minor. The Court explained that the analogy cannot be extended to create an exemption which the law of limitation does not provide.”
The Court added that the need for human agency to represent a deity does not place its property beyond the operation of limitation.
Why the claim still failed
That error was not enough to reverse the concurrent decrees. The receipts showed that the family’s occupation began under annual lease arrangements, and receipts in family members’ names did not by themselves establish an independent right.
“Continuity of cultivation is not equivalent to continuity of hostile possession. The period during which the family occupied the land under annual arrangements cannot be counted as adverse merely because the occupation is said to have extended over several decades.”
A later change in the character of possession, followed by hostile possession for the full statutory period, had to be shown and was not. The Court answered the substantial question in favour of applying adverse possession to deity property, but dismissed the appeal.
Why the judgment matters
The idea that a deity, like a minor, cannot lose property through limitation has long been invoked in temple land disputes. Following M. Siddiq, the judgment confirms that the law of limitation, and with it adverse possession, applies to deity property like any other.
Equally, the ruling shows that this does not make temple land easy to take. Possession that starts with permission, such as an annual tenancy, stays permissive however long it lasts, and a claimant must prove a clear shift to open, hostile possession and its continuance for the statutory period.
Case Title: Ghuturam Bagh (Dead) by his LRs v. Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar & Anr. [RSA No. 256 of 2006]
Bench: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, Orissa High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
For the Appellants: Senior Advocate Manoj Mishra with associates; Tanmay Mishra
For the Respondents: Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Additional Standing Counsel; Pratyusha Naidu