Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Commissioner Devasthan And Anr vs Bhera And Ors. (2023:Rj-Jd:26968-Db) on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1138/2015
1. The Commissioner Devasthan Department, Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Girwa, District
Udaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bhera S/o Shri Heera
2. Unkar S/o Shri Heera
3. Moda A/o Shri Heera
4. Sohan S/o Shri Heera
5. Mst. Sai D/o Shri Dalla
6. Mst. Kesi D/o Shri Dalla
7. Moti Lal S/o Shri Nawla
8. Shiv Lal S/o Shri Nawla
9. Mst. Jaita D/o Shri Nawla
10. Mst Savi D/o Shri Nawla
11. Hem Ram S/o Khem Raj
12. Kishan Lal S/o Khem Raj
13. Beni Ram S/o Khem Raj
14. Laxmi Lal S/o Khem Raj
15. Smt. Hiri wd/o Khem Raj
16. Mst. Sushila D/o Khem Raj
17. Ganesh Lal S/o Pema
18. Tulsi Ram S/o Pema
19. Smt. Rambha Wd/o Pema
All by caste Dangi, R/o Village Manvakhera, Tehsil Girwa,
District Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1138/2015]
Through their power of Attorney
1. Shri Umakant S/o Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, R/o Bus Stand,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
2. Shri Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Shanker Lal, by caste
Meghwal, R/o 456, Bhopamagri, Hiran Magri Sector 3, Udaipur
(Plaintiff-respondents)
PERFORMA RESPONDENTS:
20. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer.
21. The Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate
Authority, Udaipur
22. Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur
RESPONDENTS:-
23. Shambhu Lal S/o Ganesh Lal, b/c Jain, R/o Behind Kabir,
Mandir, Dahod Road, Banswara
24. Madan W/o Shambhu Lal, b/c Jain, R/o BehindKabir Mandir,
Dahod Road, Banswara
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, A.A.G.
Mr. Kailash Chand
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Magan Singh Gehlot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 24/08/2023 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1138/2015] As per office report, notice issued to the respondent No.7/1 for impleading her as party respondent in the special appeal received unserved with the report that she was not found on the postal address mentioned in the 'dasti' notices.
We are of the view that since the notice upon the other legal representatives of original respondent No.7 are duly served and they are represented through their counsel, the service of notice upon the respondent No.7/1 is dispensed with. The application filed on behalf of the appellants for impleading the legal representatives of respondent Nos.3, 4, 7 and 17 is accepted.
Mr. J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Magan Singh Gehlot is appearing on behalf of legal representatives of the above referred respondents and other private respondents. Service is, therefore, complete.
As per office report, the appeal is barred by 42 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with the prayer to condone the delay of 42 days. No reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we deem it appropriate to allow the same and condone the delay of 42 days in filing the present appeal.
This intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 25.05.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2480/2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1138/2015] The brief facts of the case are that the original respondents filed a suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer Girwa, Udaipur for declaration of khatedari rights and decree for permanent injunction with the prayer for restraining the Devasthan Department from interfering them in the suit land. The said suit was contested by the Devasthan Department and other defendants and the suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa vide order dated 11th June, 2004.
Being aggrieved with the said order dated 11 th June, 2004, the original respondents preferred an appeal before the Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, who allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit in favour of respondents vide judgment and decree dated 16th February, 2005.
The appellant-Commissioner, Devasthan Department challenged the judgment and decree dated 16 th February, 2005 before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of filing an appeal, however, the said appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 11th June, 2008.
Being aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner, Devasthan Department filed the writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition, while taking into consideration the information supplied by the Devasthan Department to one of the respondents vide letter dated 15th April, 2010, whereby the Devasthan Department itself has specifically stated that there was no temple ever recorded in the revenue records over the disputed land and there was no reference of temple over the said land in the records. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1138/2015] Learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the Revenue Appellate Authority has recorded a finding of fact that no such temple has been recorded in the revenue record over the disputed land and the said finding of Revenue Appellate Authority has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred a review petition, however, the same also came to be dismissed on 20.08.2015. The order dated 25.05.2012 and 20.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal.
In the present appeal, the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in interpreting the order dated 15.04.2010 while holding that the Devasthan Department itself has provided the information that the land in question is not a temple land or ever recorded as temple land. It is stated in the appeal that the information provided by the Devasthan Department vide letter dated 15.04.2010 was in different contest and the learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance over the same.
We have considered the said contentions of the appellants, however, we are of the view that the said contentions are not tenable because in the letter dated 15.04.2010, the Devasthan Department has specifically took a stand that no land belong to Mahadev Ji Bhojnath Ji place Math Taluk Hawala Temple is recorded in the record of the Devasthan Department. It is also specifically stated that neither any temple exists in the Hawala. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26968-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1138/2015] Apart from that, the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue, after appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the rival parties, have recorded a finding of fact that the disputed land in question has never been recorded in the name of temple and no temple ever registered in the said name.
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has also rightly observed that once the second appeal preferred by the appellants was rejected by the Board of Revenue, it was more necessary for the appellants to look into the material, before taking decision in approaching the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above observations, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 51-Babulal/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:55:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)