The Gujarat High Court dismissed a temple priest’s appeal claiming ownership of a Ganesh temple on a public access road. The Court held that a priest holds no proprietary right, serving only the deity, and cannot oppose demolition.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal from a temple priest who aimed to assert ownership rights over a Ganesh temple situated on a public access road.
The court ruled that “a priest does not possess any proprietary interest in such land and serves solely as a servant of the deity.”
Justice JC Doshi emphasized that the priest had no legal basis to stop the temple’s demolition or claim ownership simply because of his long tenure performing prayers there.
ALSO READ: ‘Agreement to Sell’ Doesn’t Give Property Ownership Rights: Himachal Pradesh High Court
In its ruling, the Court clarified the limited role of a pujari (Hindu priest), stating:
“He is not Bhumiswami (landowner), he is just servant of deity. A servant thus, has no right to claim that his possession over the suit property is on behalf of his master and matured into title on principle of adverse possession.”
The dispute originated when a landowner raised objections to the construction of the Ganesh temple on a public access road adjacent to her property, leading her to seek its removal through a civil court. Both the trial court and the first appellate court ordered the structure’s demolition, which prompted the priest to challenge these decisions in a second appeal to the High Court.
He argued that his long-standing occupation and religious duties had granted him ownership rights through adverse possession.
The High Court clarified that performing religious rituals over an extended period does not create legal claims to the land. It reiterated that religious service does not confer ownership rights.
The court stated,
“The pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right.”
The Court noted that the priest’s assertions of ownership lacked substantial evidence. To substantiate a claim of adverse possession, one must demonstrate open, continuous, and hostile occupation of the land against the actual owner for the legally required duration. In this instance, the priest acknowledged that he was performing his religious functions with the knowledge and consent of others, which undermined any claim of ownership.
The Court found that his presence was neither hostile nor adverse to the landowner and that he had never provided the evidence necessary to claim adverse possession.
Additionally, the Court remarked that the temple trustees or anyone representing the deity did not lodge a claim to ownership of the land or the temple. It was clear that the priest was acting independently in asserting rights over the property.
In its ruling, the Court also addressed the broader issue of religious structures on public property, emphasizing that ownership claims cannot be recognized for constructions on public roads.
It stated that unauthorized structures can violate the rights of both landowners and the public, and courts must take decisive action to prevent the misuse of legal principles to protect such encroachments.
Advocate Vijal P Desai represented the temple priest in this case.
Case Title: Rameshbhai Umakant Sharma v. Ashaben Kamleshkumar Modi & Ors