Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suja Ram vs State & Ors on 4 August, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98)
1
LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98)
Dated: 4.8.16
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr. Ashok Patel, for the petitioner.
Mr.O.P.Boob, Government Counsel, for the respondents.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 3.11.97 of Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector, Barmer vide order dated 22.7.96, while cancelling the mutation Nos.150, 169, 292 and 420 of the land ad measuring 160 bighas comprising Khasra No.241 and 13 bighas and 6 biswas comprising Khasrs No.377 situated at Village-Bhalro Ka Bada, Tehsil-Siwana, District-Barmer, the land has been restored in the name of "Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadevji".
2. The relevant facts are that the State Government through Tehsildar, Siwana made an application before the Additional Collector, Barmer, under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"), stating that the land ad measuring 160 bighas comprising Khasra No.241 and 13 bighas and 6 biswas comprising Khasrs No.377 situated at Village-Bhalro Ka Bada, entered in the jamabandi of Samvat- 2009 as khudkasht land of deity "Doli Banam Mandir Shri LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 2 Mahadevji" has wrongly been entered as khatedari land of Pujaris of the deity namely, Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti sons of Sukhdev Bharti and accordingly, it was prayed that the mutations recorded in the name of Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti and subsequent transferee vide mutation nos.150, 169, 292 & 420, deserve to be cancelled.
3. The application was allowed by the Additional Collector, Barmer, vide order dated 22.7.96 and accordingly, the reference was made to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Act.
4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Board has arrived at the finding that in jamabandi of Samvat- 2009, the land in question was entered as khudkasht land of deity "Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadevji". The position in the jamabandi of Samvat-2013 to 2016 and 2019 to 2022 was also the same. In 2019 to 2022, Mandir Shri Mahadevji was entered as khatedar tenant but in the jamabandi of 2023 to 2026, all of a sudden without there being any order of competent authority the names of Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti were entered as khatedar. The Board observed that the entries in the record of rights cannot be changed without there being an order of competent authority/court passed in accordance with law. The Board observed that Pujaris LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 3 managing the lands of deity, a perpetual minor, have got entered the lands in their names by committing fraud. The Board found that the sale of the land belonging to deity effected by Pujaris, who had no right whatsoever to transfer the land does not create any right in favour of the transferees and they have been wrongly entered as khatedar tenant of the land. Accordingly, by the order impugned, the mutations effected in the names of Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti and subsequent transferees have been cancelled and the lands are directed to be re-entered in the names of deity. Hence, this petition by the petitioner, who had purchased 50 bighas of land comprising Khasra No.241 from Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti vide registered sale deed dated 26.3.76, which stood mutated in his name vide order dated 15.4.76.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 26.10.83 passed by the Collector, Barmer, in a reference case no.63/81, the petitioner was directed to deposit the market value of the land in the account of deity keeping in view the order dated 24.4.82 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan and pursuant thereto, the petitioner deposited the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.200 per bigha vide receipt dated 13.2.84 and since the deity has received the LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 4 amount of compensation, the petitioner's khatedari right over the land in question could not have been disturbed by the Board of Revenue by entertaining the reference made by the Additional Collector vide order dated 22.7.96, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Act. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Bhola and another Vs. Murti Mandir Shri Jai Narayanji and Another', 1977 WLN 568. Learned counsel submitted that it was not a case of collusion or fraud and the petitioner deposited the amount of compensation pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Barmer and thus, the reference made after inordinate delay of 20 years could not have been entertained by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land for last so many years and therefore, at this stage, he cannot be divested of his khatedari rights over the land in question.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Counsel submitted that indisputably the land in question was khudkasht land of the deity, which was being cultivated by Pujaris and therefore, after resumption of jagir, the deity has acquired khatedari rights over the lands held as khudkasht. Learned Government Counsel submitted that the Pujaris had LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 5 no right whatsoever to alienate the khudkasht land of deity which was being managed by them and thus, the sale deed executed by the Pujaris Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti in favour of the petitioner is null and void and cannot have any effect. Learned Government Counsel submitted that the mutation effected in the name of petitioner on the strength of sale deed, which is null and void, has rightly been ordered to be cancelled by the Board of Revenue. In support of the contention, learned Government Counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in 'Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.' (2015) WLN 193. Learned Government Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Collector, Barmer, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation was absolutely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Act are not attracted in the matter.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. Indisputably, the land in question was held by the deity Mandir Shir Mahadevji as Doli which as per the provisions of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') is included in the land held in jagirs. But then, the land in question was LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 6 khudkasht land of deity cultivated and managed by its Pujaris and thus, after resumption of jagir, the deity become khatedar tenant of the land. The Pujaris who were holding the possession of the land as trustee had no right whatsoever to alienate the land held by deity. It is pertinent to note that right from Samvat-2009, the land was recorded in the record of rights as khudkasht land of deity, managed by Pujaris and this position continued even in jamabandis of Samvat-2013 to 2016 and thereafter in jamabandis of Samvat-2019 to 2022, the State Government was recorded as land holder and deity as khatedar tenant. Strangely enough without there being an order of competent authority or court, all of a sudden in jamabandi of Samvat-2023, names of Pujaris of deity Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti were entered as khatedar tenant. Obviously, the act of the Revenue Authorities in entering the land in the record of rights in the names of Pujaris of deity without there being any order of competent authority was collusive and the same does not create any right in favour of the Pujaris of the deity over the land in question. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Pujaris of the deity Jog Bharti and Kailash Bharti had no right whatsoever to alienate the land held by deity as khudkasht and thus, the sale deeds executed by them in favour of inter alia the petitioner are null LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 7 and void and thus, the mutation effected on the strength of such sale deeds have rightly been ordered to be cancelled by the Board of Revenue.
9. As a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands covered by decision of this Court in Tara's case (supra), wherein while considering the issue regarding the right of deity over the land held as khudkasht as also the right of Shebait/Pujaris cultivating/managing the land held by deity as khudkasht, to alienate such land, a Full Bench of this Court held :
"20. The legislature by enacting Jagirs Act of 1952 included the Doli and Muafi lands of the deity as jagirs. Schedule I of the Jagirs Act of 1952 included the land held in Jagirs as Doli and Maufi. All the lands were resumed by the State vide Notification issued under section 21 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. No Jagir of any deity was resumed prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 15.10.1955. The consequences of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the Supreme Court in Thakur Amar Singhji & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors.(supra) are given in Section 22 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. Section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the Jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances, The deity, therefore, even if it is to be treated as perpetual minor, ceased to have any interest or right in the jagir lands in which deity was recorded as Dolidar or Muafidar. Section 23 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 permitted the Jagirdar to continue in possession of the lands, which were khudkasht on the date of resumption of jagir. It was necessary for all Jagirdars including Hindu Idol (deity) that they had khudkasht lands before claiming khatedari rights in the area of lands held as khudkasht. The right and LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 8 title of the persons claiming through the Deity were not different than that of deity. Their rights were also resumed under Section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952. They did not have any independent right other than rights of Hindu Idol (deity). Section 9 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 allowed the khatedari rights of the tenant on which they had direct relations with the State Government. Section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952 provided that the right and title of the person claiming through Hindu Idol (deity) also stood resumed to the State. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx
25. In our opinion, on the aforesaid settled principles of law, the Hindu idol (deity) could only hold such lands in Jagir, which Shebait/Pujari was cultivating for such deity, having direct nexus with agricultural operations either themselves or through hired labour or servant engaged by them as to claim to be khudkasht and to be protected from resumption/acquisition under the Jagirs Act of 1952. If the land was given for cultivation to a tenant or was cultivated through a tenant, such land became khatedari of the tenant and on which the tenant had direct relations with the State. The Jagirs Act of 1952 took away all the rights of the Jagirdars including Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar on the land cultivated by the tenants. They ceased to have any right on such land. The Shebait/Pujari could not have any independent status to have claimed any right over such land cultivated by tenants. Such tenancy could also not be regarded as sub-tenant of Hindu Idol (deity) to confer any right on the Hindu Idol (deity).
26. In view of the above discussion, we decide the question no.(i) in favour of the State and against the Shebait/Pujari claiming the land to be saved by the Jagirs Act of 1952. The land held in Jagir by Hindu idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity personally or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, shall vest in the State, after the Jagirs Act of 1952. The Hindu idol LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 9 (deity), even if it is treated to be a perpetual minor, could not continue to hold such land. Such land cannot be treated to be in its personal cultivation. A tenant of such land cultivating the land acquired the rights of khatedar of the State. Such land under the tenancy of a person other than Shebait/Purjari of Hindu Idol (deity) became khatedari land of such tenant. The name of Hindu Idol (deity) from such land had to be expunged from the revenue records with Shebait/Pujuri having no right to claim the land as Khatedar. Consequently, they had no right to transfer such lands, and all such transfers have to be treated as null and void, in contravention of the Jagirs Act 1952, and the land under such transfers to be resumed by the State. (Emphasis supplied)
10. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench in Tara's case, this Court is firmly of the opinion that after resumption of jagir of deity, the deity became the khatedar of the land in question held as khudkasht and the Pujaris, who were cultivating and managing the land, had no right whatsoever over the land in question and they were wrongly recorded as khatedar tenant of the land. That apart, as Pujaris they had no right whatsoever to alienate the land held by deity as khudkasht and thus, no right is created in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by Pujaris of deity, which is null and void.
11. Coming to the contention of the petitioner that on the basis of the order passed by the Collector, Barmer dated 26.10.83, the petitioner had deposited the market value of LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 10 the land @ Rs.200 as compensation with the State Treasury to the deity. Suffice it to say that the provisions of Section 19 (4) of the Act regarding payment of compensation are attracted only where the rights are accrued in favour of tenant of khudkasht or sub tenant under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1)(a) or sub-section (1AA) of Section 19 of the Act and thus, the order passed by the Collector, Barmer, on the basis of the order alleged to have been issued by the State Government on 24.4.82 is ex facie without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, on account of amount of compensation determined by the Collector being deposited by the petitioner with the State Treasury, no right is created in his favour so as to make him entitle to claim khatedari rights over the land in question.
12. Lastly, coming to the question of delay in making the reference by the Additional Collector to the Board of Revenue, it is to be noticed that in the first instance the proceedings for reference were initiated in the year 1983 but on account of the order dated 26.10.83 being passed by the Collector unauthorisedly the matter could not be proceeded further. It is pertinent to note that the land was got entered by the Pujaris of deity in their names without there being an order of competent authority, by committing fraud. Moreover, in the LRS OF SUJA RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1470/98) 11 instant case, the petitioner is claiming right on the basis of sale deed which is null and void and thus, as a matter of fact no right whatsoever has been created in favour of the petitioner, which could be protected on account of alleged delay in making the reference.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA), J.
vij