Bombay High Court rules, neither a temple nor the deity is a private property of anyone if built in public place

Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that neither a temple nor the deity is a private property of anyone if it is constructed on a public property. The HC said a temple constructed on a public property has to be maintained on account of people’s participation and so no one can be declared as its manager or priest.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mridula Bhatkar upheld the observations of a trial court while hearing a dispute over a temple. The bench was seized with a dispute wherein a group of people seeking restraining orders against another set of people.

The plea filed by the first group of people, residents of Kumbhawadi village of Ratnagiri, claimed they maintained the temple of in question since 1923. They even claimed that they had been worshipping Lord Shree Dev Gango since the very first day when the temple was constructed. The villagers sought to restraining orders against the other set of people, who wanted to repair and reconstruct the temple.

The villagers claimed the other group has threatened them that they would not allow the villagers to worship the land or even to enter the temple. The defendants, on the other hand, countered the arguments of the villagers claiming they too worship the deity and visit the temple since 1923, as it is constructed on a public property.

Initially, the villagers had petitioned a trial court in Ratnagiri which dismissed their plea and an appeal before the Appellate Court was also turned down. Justice Bhatkar heard the submissions and upheld the ruling of the trial court which held, “It is a public place and deity and temple is not a private property of either of the parties. The deity and temple are to be maintained on account of peoples participation and therefore, no declaration can be given in favour of the villagers that they are the Managers or priests. The defendants cannot be stopped from repairing the temple if it is repaired by obtaining the necessary permission of the authority.”

“Considering the facts and also the finding given by both the Courts which is legal and correct, no substantial question of law is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed,” Justice Bhatkar ruled.