Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This Larger Bench was constituted to decide the important questions of law, which were referred on 26.02.2001, re-framed on 16.05.2001, 01.03.2011 and again on 17.12.2014 as follows:-

"(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?

8. We could have disposed of the reference by referring to the ratio of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Amar Singhji & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), Budha V/s Amilal (supra), Bir Singh & ors. V/s Pyare Singh & ors. (supra), Kalanka Devi Sansthan V/s The Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur & ors. (supra) and Deepa V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), however, since there are a few judgments of learned Single Judges, which have tried to raise an issue, relying on the principles and maxims of law relating to status of the Hindu deity (Idol), it is necessary to discuss and answer the questions. Question No.(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?

"14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.306/78 (Ram Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and others). Learned counsel or the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that the petitioner is a recorded tenant and the land was not a khudkast land. He has invited our attention to Annexure 5, 5A, 5B. Girdawaris. In the Girdawaris it has been mentioned that Ram Lal and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu Ram are the tenants. He has also invited my (sic our) attention to Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9. Annexure-9 is a mutation entry. We have gone through the judgment of the Revenue Board dated 8.4.78 and the Revenue Board has held that the deity of the temple has been entered as a Muafidar. Revenue Board has also held that the position of a deity and the Muafidar is a separate and distinct from its position. Khatedar tenants and resumption of Muafi and grant of annuity do not in any way derogate from its authority to hold land as Khatedar. The respondents have supported the judgment of the court below and have also invited our attention to number of entries. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 defines under section 2(1) Khudkast land. Khudkast means any land cultivated personally by the Jagirdar and includes any land recorded as khudkast. Sir or Harwat in settlement records or any land allotted to Jagirdar as Khudkast under Chapter-IV. Sub-clause (k) of Section 2 defines land cultivated personally as under:-

20. The legislature by enacting Jagirs Act of 1952 included the Doli and Muafi lands of the deity as jagirs. Schedule I of the Jagirs Act of 1952 included the land held in Jagirs as Doli and Maufi. All the lands were resumed by the State vide Notification issued under section 21 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. No jagir of any deity was resumed prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 15.10.1955. The consequences of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the Supreme Court in Thakur Amar Singhji & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) are given in Section 22 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. Section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the Jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances, The deity, therefore, even if it is to be treated as perpetual minor, ceased to have any interest or right in the jagir lands in which deity was recorded as Dolidar or Muafidar. Section 23 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 permitted the Jagirdar to continue in possession of the lands, which were khudkasht on the date of resumption of jagir. It was necessary for all Jagirdars including Hindu Idol (deity) that they had khudkasht lands before claiming khatedari rights in the area of lands held as khudkasht. The right and title of the persons claiming through the Deity were not different than that of deity. Their rights were also resumed under section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952. They did not have any independent right other than rights of Hindu Idol (deity). Section 9 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 allowed the khatedari rights of the tenant on which they had direct relations with the State Government. Section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952 provided that the right and title of the person claiming through Hindu Idol (deity) also stood resumed to the State.