Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Panna vs Assistant Setilement Officer And Ors on 9 October, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:32778]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2543/2000
L.Rs. of Late Shri Panna
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhilwara & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit, G.C.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 04/10/2023 Pronounced on 09/10/2023
1. The matter pertains to the year 2000, and thus, listed under the category of "Oldest Cases for Early Disposal".
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and
i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order ANNEXURE P/8 dated May 12, 1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the non-
petitioners may kindly be directed not to make any change in the revenue records during the pendency of the writ petition;
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction grant any other relief, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) The costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (2 of 9) [CW-2543/2000]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that original petitioner-Panna (since deceased represented through his LRs herein) purchased the land bearing khasra nos.349/2, 350/2, 351/2 and 352/2 total 4 bighas and 11 biswas from one Chhoga S/o Manaji Jat through a registered sale deed on 19.08.1972. The land in question was earlier sold to Chhoga S/o Manaji Jat by one Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu through a registered sale deed on 04.08.1972. 2.1. The new khasra nos.871, 873, and 878, upon being generated in respect of the land in question, new khasra nos. 871 and 878 were recorded in the name of Gangadass, and new khasra nos. 873 old khasra nos. 349/1, 349/2 were recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple). The original petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhilwara for recording his name in the revenue record as per the sale deed pertaining to the aforesaid land. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer on 24.04.1974 passed an order, while finding that the new khasra no. 873 (old khasra nos. 349/1, 349/2) was recorded in the name of the original petitioner and new khasra no. 878 was recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple).
2.2. The original petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for making the necessary entry and recording his name in relation to new Khasra nos. 871 and 878 in the revenue record and further stated that the said new khasras was made of old khasra nos. 349/1 and 349/2. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (3 of 9) [CW-2543/2000] 2.3. Thereafter, the Additional Collector, Bhilwara submitted the case before the Director of Land Records, whereupon the Director of Land Records made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer on 24.09.1998 against the order dated 24.04.1974. The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 12.05.1999 accepted the said reference and the land i.e new Khasra no. 873 was ordered to be recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple), while cancelling the khatedari rights of the original petitioner in respect of the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer sent the matter to the Bhumapak for making measurement of the land in question, but the learned BoR without considering the said aspect of the case passed the impugned order.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the new khasra no. 873 was made of old khasra nos.349/1 and 349/2 and the Temple had no right over the said khasra, but despite the same, the learned BoR passed the impugned order which is not justified in law.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2024 to 2027, the name of Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu was recorded as khadamdar and having a better status under the Mewar Revenue Rules than the Khatedar, and thereafter, Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu sold the land to Chhoga and he further sold the same to the original petitioner; thus, the recording of the land in question in the name of the Temple was not permissible in law.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (4 of 9) [CW-2543/2000]
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of Temple (deity) in Samwat 2024- 2027, and therefore, the reference was rightly accepted by the learned BoR vide the impugned order.
4.1. It was further submitted that the sale deed of the land in question in favour of the petitioner was unauthorized and illegal because the vendor had no right to sell the Temple's (deity's) land, as the Temple was the sole lawful owner of the land in question. 4.2. It was also submitted that Hari Das Guru was recorded as khadamdar on the basis of his possession over the land in question and the name was changed to Gangadas disciple of Haridas, which does not confer upon him any khatedari right pertaining to the Temple's (deity) land in question, and therefore, the impugned order was not justified in law.
4.3. It was further submitted that the land in question was khatedari land of Thakur Raghunath ji Temple and the land belonging to the Temple (deity) continued to be its land and could not have been mutated or transferred in the name of any person.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the original petitioner purchased the land in question and then filed an application before Assistant Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order and stated that the new khasra nos 873 (old khasra nos. 349/1, 349/2) was recorded in the name of the original petitioner (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (5 of 9) [CW-2543/2000] and new khasra no. 878 was recorded in the name of Temple (deity). The petitioner again filed an application for making the necessary entry and recording of the name of the petitioner in relation to new Khasra nos. 871 and 878. Thereafter, the Additional Collector submitted the case before the Director of Land Records, whereupon the Director of Land Records made the reference before the learned BoR; the learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 12.05.1999 accepted the said reference and ordered recording of the land in the name of Temple (deity).
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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (6 of 9) [CW-2543/2000] 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 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."(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:32778] (7 of 9) [CW-2543/2000]
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.
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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (8 of 9) [CW-2543/2000] 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 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 land in question was recorded in the name of the Temple (deity) as per the Jamabandi Samwat 2024-27 in column no.4 and Gangadas Guru Haridass Sadhu was recorded as Khadamdar thereof, and therefore he was not having any khatedari rights over the land in question.
9. This Court also observes that once the land in question was clearly recorded in the name of the Temple (deity) as its khatedari land, then the Khadamdar was having no right over the land in question, because he was merely a Pujari or servant of the Temple (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32778] (9 of 9) [CW-2543/2000] (deity). Therefore, the subsequent sale of the said land cannot be permissible in the eye of law.
10. This Court further observes that the Director of Land Records had rightly made the reference before the learned BoR, and thus, the impugned order passed by learned BoR accepting the said reference and ordering recording of the land in question in the name of Temple (deity) is justified in law.
11. 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.
12. 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 petitioners in the present petition.
13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:48 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)