Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It may be mentioned that in Ishwardas case, (1968) 3 SCR 441= (AIR 1968 SC 1364) the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the question whether a manager or a Shebait of the properties of an idol or the manger of the Sansthan can or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands for personal cultivation. The distinction between a manger or a Shebait of an idol and a trustee where a trust has been created is well recognized. The properties of the trust in law vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or a Sansthan they do not vest in the manger or the Shebait. It is the deity or the Sansthan which owns and holds the properties. It is only the possession and the management which vest in the manager."

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 (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.

43. Before parting with the matter, it may be useful to refer the arguments raised in the written submissions submitted by the State Government, in which it has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mangi Lal V/s State of Rajasthan (supra) and the Larger Bench decisions of the Board of Revenue in the matter of Gurdayal V/s Mandir Shri Shanischarji Maharj (1994 RRD 1) and Shri Shivram V/s Shri Mishru (1987 RRD 261). It is submitted that a Hindu Idol (deity) is a perpetual minor and consequently, for the purposes of the Jagirs Act of 1952 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 also. The lands held in Muafi by a deity, but cultivated by a person other than Shebait of the deity himself or by hired labour or servant engaged by its Shebait, as a tenant of the deity, will still be regarded as lands in the personal cultivation of the deity and khatedari rights shall not accrue to the person cultivating the land. A person, who immediately preceding the commencement of the Jagirs Act of 1952 entered in the revenue records as a khatedar, pattedar, khadamdar or under any other description implying that he is a tenant having heritable and fully transferable rights in the tenancy of the Muafi land of a Hindu idol (deity), shall become a khatedar tenant of such land on resumption of the Muafi for the purposes of the Jagirs Act of 1952 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, however, if he is not so entered then the khatedaeri rights cannot accure to him on lands held by a Hindu Idol (deity) after the commencement of the Jargirs Act of 1952. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Hanuman Prasad V/s State of Rajasthan in which the Division Bench dismissing the appeals highlighting the orders passed by the Apex Court regarding the safeguard of the rights of the deity, a perpetual minor, observed that the trustee/archakas/shebaits/ employees entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such proprieties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession in collision with the authorities concerned. Such acts of "fences eating the crops" should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of the Boards/Trusts and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

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 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.