Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jawahar Lal vs Board Of Revenue on 5 September, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:27770]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 431/1989
Jawahar Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja
& Mr. Pramveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Bhadu, Dy. GC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 16/08/2023 Pronounced on 05/09/2023
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, and
(a) quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 1- 11-1988 (Annexure-5); and
(b) dismiss the plaintiff's application under section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with costs through out; and
(c) award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner from the non-petitioner No.4 to 6; and
(d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which the circumstances of the case may warrant be also passed."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner had purchased a land situated in Village Basad, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (2 of 9) [CW-431/1989] Chittorgarh through a registered sale deed dated 27.08.1966 from one Guman s/o Mannaji and Manna s/o Deviji Anjana (since deceased).
2.1. Thereafter, the respondents no.4, 5 & 6 (since deceased represented through their LRs, herein) had filed an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') before the Assistant Collector, Pratapgarh, stating therein that the land in question is a muafi land of the Temple Laxminarayan Ji and they were Pujaris thereof, and Guman and Manna were Shikmis, who sold the land in question to the petitioner without any permission. The learned Assistant Collector rejected the said application on 30.04.1971; being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellant Authority (RAA), which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.03.1973.
2.2. Against the said judgment, a second appeal was preferred under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was allowed vide the judgment dated 02.08.1974, while quashing and setting aside the orders dated 30.04.1971 & 30.03.1973, and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected, while restoring the land in question in the name of Thakurji Laxmi Narayan Ji (Deity).
2.3 Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2428/1974) before this Hon'ble Court, which was partly allowed on 17.08.1983, and judgment dated 02.08.1974 was quashed and set-aside, while remanding the matter back to the learned BoR for fresh consideration.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (3 of 9) [CW-431/1989] 2.4 Thereafter, the learned BoR after hearing all the parties again allowed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 01.11.1988, while observing that the possession of the land in question shall be handed over to the Pujaris, after dispossessing the petitioner therefrom.
3. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Jaideep Singh Saluja and Mr. Pramveer Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the name of Guman and Manna (petitioner's vendors) mentioned in the revenue records right from Samvat Year 2002, and they were in cultivatory possession at the time of resumption of muafi land, and after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they became khatedars of the land.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned BoR had wrongly concluded that the land in question was cultivated by the Temple itself through Pujaris. It was also submitted that no part of the land was khudkasht, and the Idol retained no rights in respect of the land, after the resumption of maufi rights; thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is highly illegal. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Deity has no locus standi to file any application or suit as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was also submitted that the name of Guman and Manna (petitioner's vendors) were mentioned in the record as Shikmis or sub-tenants, but the learned BoR ignoring the record and material available passed the impugned order without any cogent reason, which is not justified in law. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (4 of 9) [CW-431/1989]
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the land in question was belonging to the Temple Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji and Guman and Manna (petitioner's vendors) have no authority to sell the land of an Idol to the petitioner, as they were not the recorded khatedars of the land in question.
4.1. It was further submitted that the land was recorded in the name of the Temple Shri Laxminarayan Ji in jamabandi of Samvat years 2012 to 2015. It was also submitted that as per the Jamabandi of Samvat Years 2016 to 2019, Temple Shri Laxminarayan Ji was mentioned as owner of the land, while the names of respondents no.4 to 6 have been recorded as tenants. 4.2. It was also submitted that the Temple was to be recorded as khudkasht tenant, as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, while the entire record shows that the land in question is a Temple land and the petitioners have no right in respect thereof, and therefore, the judgment passed by the learned BoR is justified in law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the petitioner had purchased the land from Guman and Manna through the sale deed, whereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Assistant Collector, which was rejected; thereafter an appeal was preferred before the learned RAA, which too was dismissed. Against the same, a second appeal was preferred before the learned BoR, whcih was allowed, while directing that land shall be recorded in the name of the Temple. Being aggrieved by the same, the aforementioned (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (5 of 9) [CW-431/1989] writ petition was preferred before this Hon'ble Court, whereupon the judgment of the learned BoR order was quashed and the matter was remanded back to to BoR for consideration afresh. The learned BoR after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and passed the impugned order, while directing that the land in question shall be handed to the Pujaris, after dispossessing the petitioner therefrom.
7. This Court in the case of Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj Vs Board of Revenue & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3589/2023, decided on 02.09.2023) made the following observations:
"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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (6 of 9) [CW-431/1989] 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 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) (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (7 of 9) [CW-431/1989] 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.
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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27770] (8 of 9) [CW-431/1989] 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 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 Guman and Manna (petitioner's vendors) had no transferable rights pertaining to the land in question, and therefore, the petitioner also has no legal right over the land in question, even if the same was sold through the sale deed. This Court also observes that the land in question was recorded as khatedari of the Temple Shri Laxminarayan Ji, and therefore, no person can acquiry right over the same.
9. This Court further observes that the learned revenue authority below passed the impugned order, after duly appreciating the material and evidence place on record before it. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:27770] (9 of 9) [CW-431/1989]
10. 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. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 185 of 2001 & Other Connected Matters, decided on 15.07.2015), and the same was followed by this Court, in the afore-quoted judgment.
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the aforementioned precedent law as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending application stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:29:38 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)