Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Kalu And Ors on 5 July, 2019
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1436/2018
The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
----Appellant
Versus
Kalu & Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshit Burani.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Dave.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 05/07/2019
1. The respondents-writ petitioners had challenged the order of the Board of Revenue.
2. The facts are that the Additional Collector, Barmer under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, was approached by the State Government, which alleged that land in two Biswas comprising Khasra No.84 & 86, entered in Jamabandi during the settlement, duly in the name of "Doli Banam Math Shri Jogmaya" was managed by Moru, and after his death, land was entered in Rahim's name thereby succeeded by his legal representatives.
3. In short, it was argued that the land was wrongly entered in the revenue record in favour of the legal representatives of Moru and Rahim and claim for cancellation was made. This application was allowed on 15.09.1992. The Board of Revenue initially remanded the matter seeking clarification which was furnished by (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 10:19:04 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-1436/2018] an order dated 21.09.1994 whereby the Additional Collector held that the expression 'math' was wrongly recorded and that the land as a matter of fact belonged to "Shri Mandir Jagamaya". The matter was again referred to the Board of Revenue, which held that no khatedari rights or title could accrue in favour of pujari or anyone else as the land belongs to the deity, a perpetual minor. This order was challenged by the respondents-writ petitioners.
4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order held that the resumption of jagir of the deity was not disputed and that the documents available on record for the years i.e. khatauni bandobast of samvat 2014-2023 revealed that the land was recorded in the name of deity as Doli, Rahim, Hakim etc. who were shown as khatedars of the land. The learned Single Judge also stated that the State never submitted that the land was cultivated by deity as khudkhast and therefore, after resumption it had vested in it. In these circumstances, drawing the strength from the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2015) WLN 193, the writ petition was allowed.
5. The impugned order noted the relevant reasoning in Tara(supra) particularly as follows:
"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 (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 10:19:04 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-1436/2018] 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 coutivated by tenants. Sluch 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 o(deity), even if it is treated to be a perpetual minor, could not continue to hod 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/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) became khatedari land of such tenant. The name of Hindu Idol (deity) form such land had to be expunged from the revenue records with Shebait/Pujari 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)"
6. In the light of the Full Bench judgment and further fact that since the writ petitioners were shown as khatedars in the revenue of Samvat 2014 onwards, they acquired the status of the khatedar tenants of the land held by the State. The order of the Board of Revenue was held therefore to be erroneous. Further, it was held that the petitioners were cultivating the land for more than five decades and in the absence of fraud, the reference after an inordinate delay was not justified.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that though in Tara(supra) case was not carried in appeal (Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 10:19:04 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-1436/2018] by Special Leave Petition by the State but some other parties have infact approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition, which is pending.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the law in Tara(supra) case was correctly followed by the learned Single Judge in the present case. The facts clearly show that deity was not recorded as the khatedar tenant but rather the respondents-writ petitioners were shown to possess that status from the year 1963 onwards.
9. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 16-Ashutosh/-
(Downloaded on 10/07/2019 at 10:19:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)