Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Mangi Lal And Ors (2023:Rj-Jd:34470) on 11 October, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:34470]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 292/2001
State of Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Mangi Lal & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RD Bhadu, Dy. G.C.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 11/10/2023
1. The matter pertains to the year 2001, and thus, listed under the category of "Oldest Cases for Early Disposal". However, despite the same, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-State claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that :
a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgments dated 16.7.98 and 19.7.2000 (Annexure 2 and
3) may kindly be quashed and set aside;
b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 30.3.98 (Annexure 1) referring the reference may kindly be allowed;
c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction it be declared that the Doli land cannot be declared in the name of Pujari and the same be entered as Doli land;
d) any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner State;
e) Costs be allowed to the petitioner."(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:34470] (2 of 9) [CW-292/2001]
3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the bone of contention in the present case is a land comprising old khasra nos.803, 804, 805, 806, 801 & 802 (new khasra nos.951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956 & 957), measuring in total 7.20 hectares, situated in Village Basna, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali. The said land, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat 2016-2019, was recorded in muafi of Doli Banam Mandir Shri Raghunathji of Sojat (in short, 'Temple'). However, the Pujaris of the Temple in an illegal and unauthorized manner got the land in question recorded, in the revenue records, as their khatedari land, and thereafter, sold and transferred the same to the respondents herein, which was accordingly recorded and mutated in the revenue records in their favour. 3.1. Subsequently, the Tehsildar, Sojat preferred an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, while bringing the aforementioned factual matrix, before the learned Additional District Collector, Pali, with a prayer that since the land in question was a muafi of the Temple, the revenue entry made in favour of the respondents may be cancelled and the land in question may be recorded in the name of the Temple in the revenue records.
3.2. The learned Additional District Collector made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide order dated 30.03.1998, with a direction to the respondents to appear before the learned BoR on 24.06.1998. 3.3. The learned BoR however, vide the impugned order dated 16.07.1998 rejected the said reference, while observing, amongst others, that as per the Jamabandis of Samwat 2016-2019 & 2021- (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (3 of 9) [CW-292/2001] 2024, one Late Sukaram (father of the respondents) was the recorded khatedar of the land in question since the very beginning, and the Temple was the land-holder, and thus, Late Sukaram was having a definite relationship of tenant with the Temple. It was also observed that after abolition of muafi, owing to such relationship, the tenant shall have the right to be declared as khatedar.
3.3.1. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner-State has preferred a review petition before the learned BoR, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2000. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore- quoted reliefs.
4. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the impugned orders were passed by the learned BoR, while not taking into due consideration, the vital aspect of the matter that as per the Jamabandi of Samwat 2016- 19, the land in question was a Deity land.
4.1. He further submits that since the Deity is a perpetual minor in respect of the properties held by it, no right, title or interest can accrue in favor of any transferee, under any circumstances whatsoever, therefore, the learned BoR ought to have accepted the reference made by the learned Additional District Collector, on the application so preferred by the concerned Tehsildar. 4.2. He also submits that as per the settled proposition of law, even the long drawn possession over a land and change in the name of the revenue records qua the land, do not confer upon anyone a khatedari right pertaining to the Temple's (deity) land, (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (4 of 9) [CW-292/2001] and therefore, on that count also, the impugned orders passed by the learned BoR are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. He thus submits that since the learned BoR had passed the impugned orders without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the material placed on record before it, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State as well as perused the record of the case.
6. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, this Court observes that the land in question was recorded, as per the Jamabandi of the relevant period, in the name of the Temple (Deity), a perpetual minor, and the Pujaris of the Temple, in an illegal and unauthorized manner, sold/transferred the same in favour of the respondents.
6.1. Upon such illegality coming to the knowledge of the Tehsildar concerned, the application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was preferred before the learned Additional District Collector, whereupon a reference was made before the learned BoR, but the learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 16.07.1998, declined to accept such reference; review preferred against the said order was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2000.
7. This Court is conscious of the judgment dated 02.09.2023 rendered by this Court in the case of Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj Vs Board of Revenue & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (5 of 9) [CW-292/2001] 3589/2023), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:
"8. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Tara & Ors. (Supra) as well as the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10967/2022, decided on 04.07.2023), as hereunder:
Tara & Ors. (Supra):
"(i) Whether 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 or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, such idol being treated as a perpetual minor, will still be regarded as land held in the personal cultivation of the deity or will such land be regarded as held in the tenancy by the person cultivating such land as tenant of a deity?
Answer:- The question no.(i) is decided 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 (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. Question no.(iii) Whether such a Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) can be alienated by them? If so, what is the effect? Answer:- The Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol(deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) by the Jagirs Act of 1952 will not give (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (6 of 9) [CW-292/2001] them any right nor they could alienate the land. The alienation made by them of such land which was resumed/acquired by the State Government and for which claims were made and settled before the Jagir Commissioner, would be null and void and will have no effect". Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das (Supra):
"13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and while keeping into consideration the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Tara and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) RLW2721 (Raj.), this Court is of the opinion that once the land has been consistently recorded as a temple/deity/doli land and has been marked as a Khudkasht for the same and there is no independent Khatedar having its existence in the land record from the beginning then any right cannot aggrieve any person merely because in the Khudkasht or deity he was acting as a sub-tenant. The consistency in the land record reflects the land in question belonging to the doli/temple/deity the perpetual minor and the category being Khudkasht.
14. In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of."
9. This Court further observes that the land in question was recorded as a khudkasht land in the name of the Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj at the time of settlement and the Pujari/ Shebait cannot acquire and get such land(s) registered in his name. In the present case, once the land(s) was recorded as a Temple land(s) and marked as khudkasht, neither the private respondents have any right on such land, nor any other person can claim such right, and if it is so done even by way of entry in the revenue records or otherwise, the same is liable to be held contrary to the settled proposition of law.
10. This Court also observes that the land in question, being a khudkasht land(s), belonging to Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj, which is a perpetual minor, the claim of the private respondents that they were the khatedars of the land for last 54 years, is of no consequence, because Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj is a perpetual minor, and thus, the subject falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (7 of 9) [CW-292/2001] 10.1. In the case of Mangi Lal & Ors (Supra), it was held that "Section 46 of the Act, 1955 provides for exemption of obtaining khatedari rights in exceptional cases. It includes the case of a minor and a person incapable of cultivating his holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity. An idol/deity can fall to both the classes i.e. a minor as well as a physically disabled or infirm person and the manager or the State is under an obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or disabled person. No person can acquire Khatedari rights in the land belonging to a minor. The object is laudable and based on public policy and, therefore, the deity cannot be deprived of his property by such a transaction, which has fraudulently been entered upon by the Pujari himself. It is the obligation/function of the State to look after the welfare of the deity being a person, may be juristic, may be a person on account of fiction of law but incapable to protect its interest being a perpetual minor and disabled physically". Relevant portion of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also reproduced as hereunder:
"6. Legal disability.--
(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified there for in the third column of the Schedule"
11. This Court further observes that the petitioner is the Devotee/Worshipper of the Temple and he has a right to take any action only in the interests of the Temple, including protection of the Temple land(s), as the same is a settled position of law, as per the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR (Supra).
12. This Court also observes that the private respondents' names were entered in the revenue records in relation to the khudkasht land in question; previously, the said land was registered in the name of Temple (Doli) under the khudkhasht category, and therefore, father of the private (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34470] (8 of 9) [CW-292/2001] respondents, namely, Pema Ram, being the Pujari of Temple and thereafter, the private respondents as his legal heirs, cannot claim any right over such land. Thus, in the present case, the claim of the private respondents does not hold good, even as per the precedent law laid down in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan Kalyan Samiti & Ors. (Supra)."
8. This Court further observes that the reference was made by the learned Additional District Collector was justified in law in making a reference before the learned BoR, in light of the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Tara & Ors Vs Sate of Rajasthan & Anr, (D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001, decided on 15.07.2015); relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"Question no.(v) Whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and u/s.232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity). If so, to what extent? Answer:- No time limit has been fixed for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity), and thus a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if the fraud is alleged, the power must not be exercised after unreasonable period, such as, after several decades claiming rights over the land."
9. This Court also observes that the entire issue herein has already been settled by the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Tara & Ors. (Supra), and the same was followed by this Court, in the afore-quoted judgment rendered in the case of Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj (Supra).
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:34470] (9 of 9) [CW-292/2001]
10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the aforementioned precedent laws as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned BoR was not justified in law in passing the impugned orders, while declining to accept the reference made by the learned Additional District Collector.
11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed; accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.07.1998 and 19.07.2000 passed by the learned BoR, the reference made by the Additional District Collector, Pali vide its order dated 30.03.1998 is allowed, and the mutation(s) made in the revenue records in favour of the respondents herein is ordered to be cancelled, and the concerned revenue authorities are directed to record and mutate the land in question, being Doli land, in the name of the Temple (Deity), thereby vesting the land in question in the Temple. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
18-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:30:48 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)