Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 RAJ 168
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8621/2021
Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji, Village Pal, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur Through Devotee-Cum-Priest Sukha Ram S/o Purkha
Ram Aged About 41 Years, R/o Thoriyo Ki Dhani, Pal, District
And Tehsil Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jodhpur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur.
4. Tehsildar, Jodhpur.
5. Prakash Chand S/o Bhanwarlal, By Caste Oswal, Resident
Of Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Residing At G-27,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur).
6. Sampatram S/o Bhanwarlal, By Caste Oswal, Resident Of
Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Residing At G-27, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur).
7. Mishrimal S/o Bhanwarlal, By Caste Oswal, Resident Of
Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Residing At G-27, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur).
8. Gautam S/o Bhanwarlal, By Caste Oswal, Resident Of
Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Residing At G-27, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur).
9. Teli Devi W/o Bhanwarlal, By Caste Oswal, Resident Of
Barmer, Rajasthan (At Present Residing At G-27, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur).
10. Kewal Chand S/o Late Shri Sonraj, By Caste Oswal, R/o
15, Bohra Sadan, Dwarkapuri, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
11. Bheemraj S/o Late Shri Sonraj, By Caste Oswal, R/o 15,
Bohra Sadan, Dwarkapuri, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
12. Hanumandas S/o Late Shri Sonraj, By Caste Oswal, R/o
15, Bohra Sadan, Dwarkapuri, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM)
(2 of 7) [CW-8621/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Moti Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 09/07/2021 This writ petition is filed on behalf of Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji, village Pal, Tehsil and District Jodhpur through Shri Sukha Ram son of Purkha Ram, resident of Thoriyo-ki-Dhani, Pal, Tehsil and District, Jodhpur claiming himself as devotee-cum- priest with the following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
● That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-20) Passed by Tehsildar, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and further the application (Annexure-18) filed by the respondents, may kindly be rejected. ● That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the entry of the Jamabandi (Anexure-21) may kindly be directed to restore in the name of petitioner temple Shri Thakur Ji village Pal, Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be directed to enter the name of the Doli Banam Temple Shri Thakur Ji in land of village Pal, Khasara No. 93 and 93/1 rakba 81.13 Bigha and Khasra no. 4 Rakba 22 Bigha, 13 Biswa.
● That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 01.04.2012 (Annexure-16) Passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.(Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM)
(3 of 7) [CW-8621/2021] ● That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of Khasra No.93 of village Pal measuring about 81 Bighas and 13 Bishwas was recorded in the name of the petitioner prior to the settlement proceedings, however, later on, the priest of the petitioner-temple got himself recorded as Khatedar of the land and thereafter sold it to various other persons. It is submitted that later on as per the order passed by the State Government, the land in question was again recorded in the name of petitioner- temple and the said order came to be challenged by aggrieved persons before this Court, however, this Court in the said proceedings remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved persons.
The Tehsildar, Jodhpur vide order dated 09.12.2004 held that the land of Khasra No.93 of village Pal measuring 81 Bighas and 13 Biswas belongs to temple and it was wrongly recorded in the name of priest of the temple. The Tehsildar also held that the sale-deeds executed by the priest of the temple in favour of individuals are void ab initio and after relying on the orders passed by the Devasthan Department and the District Collector has held that the land in question be recorded in the name of temple. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner-temple in the revenue record.
It is submitted that against the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, an appeal was preferred on behalf of (Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-8621/2021] erstwhile Khatedars, which came to be dismissed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide order dated 01.06.2005. It is argued that the order dated 01.06.2005 has attained finality as the same has not yet been challenged by the erstwhile Khatedars.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Shyam Bothra filed an appeal against the order dated 09.12.2004 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur in the year 2012. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 10.04.2012 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order dated 10.04.2012, the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, the Board of Revenue also rejected the said appeal vide order dated 04.03.2014, against which, the State of Rajasthan has preferred a writ petition, which is still pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the meantime, one of the persons, who was earlier recorded as Khatedar of the land in question, moved an application before the Tehsildar, Jodhpur with a prayer to record his name in the revenue record in place of the petitioner-temple. The Tehsildar after obtaining report of the Patwari concerned, passed the order dated 08.02.2021 and issued a direction to record the name of the private respondents in the revenue record. Pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, the Patwari has sanctioned the mutation in the name of private respondents vide Annexure-21.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the action of the Tehsildar, Jodhpur of directing the Patwari concerned to record the name of the private respondents in the revenue (Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM) (5 of 7) [CW-8621/2021] record instead of the petitioner-temple is absolutely illegal. It is further argued that in view of the orders passed from time to time and in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Tara and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) RLW2721 (Raj.) the land belonging to a temple cannot be recorded in the name of Pujari or else as the temple is considered to be perpetual minor and in such circumstances, the impugned action of the Tehsildar is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is also illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur and the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur may kindly be set aside.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, it is noticed that against the order dated 10.04.2012, the State of Rajasthan had preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which came to be dismissed on 04.03.2014 and being aggrieved with that the State of Rajasthan preferred a writ petition before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the stay petition against which, the State of Rajasthan had preferred D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.736/2016, wherein, initially the Division Bench, on 11.11.2016, while issuing notices of the appeal had ordered for maintaining status quo with regard to the land in question but later on the said D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.736/2016 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.08.2017. The judgment dated 21.08.2017 reads as under: (Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM)
(6 of 7) [CW-8621/2021] "An appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 08.07.2016, whereby learned Single Bench dismissed the stay petition.
In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the instant matter pertains to a land which was entered in the Revenue records as of deity's land and in the event of denial of the interim order as prayed for, the respondents would be in position to change the entire nature of the land and also be able to further transfer the same.
We are of the considered opinion that for such eventualities, adequate care is taken by the law and therefore, the denial of interim order in no manner will adversely affect any right of the appellant. The appeal, hence, is dismissed. The appellant-petitioner is at liberty to move an application for early hearing of the writ petition before learned Single Bench."
While allowing the appeal vide order dated 10.04.2012, the Divisional Commissioner has recorded a finding to the effect that the land in question was not khudkasht land of the petitioner-temple but was cultivated by its Pujari. After observing this, the Divisional Commissioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Revenue Board, Ajmer dated 12.04.2007 as also on the orders passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur dated 27.06.2008 and 30.04.2010 respectively and further directed the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to make sure the compliance of the above referred orders. It was also noticed by the Divisional Commissioner that the orders of the conversion of the land in question took place in the year 1985 be also recorded in the revenue record.
So the position as of today is that there is no stay operating against the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM)
(7 of 7) [CW-8621/2021] The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, relying on the decision of the Divisional Commissioner dated 10.04.2012 has passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-20).
This writ petition is filed by Shri Sukha Ram claiming himself as devotee-cum-priest of petitioner - Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji, however, no such material, in support of his claim of being the priest of the petitioner-temple, is placed on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner has any locus, then he has an adequate alternate remedy under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to challenge the action of the Tehsildar of sanctioning the mutation in favour of the private respondents.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merits in this writ petition, hence, it is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 50-masif/-PS (Downloaded on 12/07/2021 at 08:48:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)