JUDGMENT 1. - The undisputed facts of the case are that Thakurji Shri Laxmi Nafainj were holding the agricultural lands in dispute as muafidar' and respondents No. 4 to 6, Biharidas, Balmukand and Prayagdas were the pujaris of the temple of Shri Laxminarainji, Manna and Gumana were cultivating the said lands on behalf of the muafidar. On July 1, 1963 the muafi of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji was resumed by the State and Manna and Gumana continued to cultivate the land even thereafter. On August 27, 1966 Manna and Gumana transferred their rights in the lands in dispute to the petitioner Jawahar Lal by means of a registered sale-deed. Thereafter on November 25, 1966 the three pujaris, in their capacity as Satbarakars of the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, presented an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Assistant Collector, Pratapgarh. It mad be pointed out that the disputed agricultural lands are situated in village Basad in tehsil Pratapgarh in the district of Chittorgarh. In their application, the Pujaris stated that the land in dispute was in the muafi, of idol Shri Laxminarainji and that the cultivation was done by the Pujaris on behalf of the idol through Manna and Ciumana, who are 'Shikmi' cultivators. It was further asserted that the Shikmi tenants had no right to transfer their interest in the lands in dispute by sale and as such the purchaser Jawahar Lal should be dispossessed, as he was inducted into possession by Manna and Gutuana without any authority of law and that possession be resorted to the Thakurji. The stand taken by Jawahar Lal and his vendors was that after the resumption of the muafi land of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, the State Government became the land-holder in respect of the land in dispute instead of the idol and Manna and Gumana, who were in cultivatory possession of such land for the last 30 years, became khatedar tenants there of. It was further stated by them that in their capacity as khatedar tenants of such land, they were authorised to transfer their rights in the agricultural land in dispute by sale to Jawahar Lal. 2. It was further stated by them that in their capacity as khatedar tenants of such land, they were authorised to transfer their rights in the agricultural land in dispute by sale to Jawahar Lal. 2. The Assistant Collector by his order dated April 30, 1971 held that after the resumption of the muafi of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, the petitioner had no right whatever in the agricultural lands in dispute and the khatedari rights vested in Manna and Gumana, who were in possession of such fields on the date of resumption and that they were entitled to dispose of their khatedari rights by sale or otherwise. The application filed by pujaris was, therefore, dismissed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority was also dismissed by his order dated March 30, 1973. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that Manna and Gumana were the tenants of the lands in dispute since the settlement proceedings take place and that after the resumption of the muafi of idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, they became khatedar tenants in respect of the said lands. It was also held by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the lands in dispute were not cultivated on behalf of or in the name of deity and Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji was merely the muafdar and after the resumption of the said muafi, the land vested in the State Government. It was further held that the pujaris, acting as Sarbarakars of the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, could not acquire khatedari rights. The vendors Marina and Gumana expired and Jawaharlal, vendee alone contested the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 3. The Pujaris thereafter filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue on behalf of the idol, which was decided by the order of the Board dated August 2, 1974. The Board held that the khatedari right in the disputed lands vested in the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji after the resumption of the muafi and that Manna and Gumana, who cultivated the said land on behalf of the idol of Shri Laxminarainji as a sub tenant thereof, were not entitled to transfer their rights under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 2, 1974 is assailed on various grounds in the present writ petition. 4. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 2, 1974 is assailed on various grounds in the present writ petition. 4. The disputed agricultural lands were given by way of 'muafi' for meeting the expenses for the worship of the idol of Shri Laxminarainji and consequently such lands vested in the idol and the pujaris, in their capacity as Sarbarakars or managers, looked after the cultivation of the agricultural landi in question on behalf of the deity. But the question as to whether the agricultural lands in dispute were khudkasht lands of the idol of Shri Laxminarainji after the resumption of the muafi, has not been dealt with by the Board of Revenue; although there was a definite finding recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority that after the resumption of the muafi, the vendors Manna and Gumana became the khatedar tenants of the lands in dispute and that the idol did not become the khatedar tenant of such lands as the same were not cultivated as khudkasht. The Board of Revenue observed as under : "After the resumption of muafi, the khatedari vests in the idol of Shri Laxminarainji as a juristic person and a perpetual minor and the land belonging to the temple could be managed on behalf of the temple by its managers or pujaris. Manna and Gumana who cultivated this land on behalf of the idol as sub-tenants had no right to transfer under any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955." It was further observed as under by the Board : "As already observed above, the deity is in full existence as a juristic person and a perpetual minor and this position has boon admitted by the sub-tenants and Jawaharlal transferee. The State is not concerned after resumption of jagir in the present case which has reverted to the idol as khatedar tenant." 5. It is not clear from the aforesaid observations as to how the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji became khatedar tenant after resumption of muafi on July 1, 1963. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 submitted that documents Ex. R. 2 to R. 7 showed that consistently through the years the temple of Shri Laxminarainji through the three pujaris as managers has been described as the tenants in the record of rights of Smt. 2002 and then continuously from 2020 to 2059. The document Ex. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 submitted that documents Ex. R. 2 to R. 7 showed that consistently through the years the temple of Shri Laxminarainji through the three pujaris as managers has been described as the tenants in the record of rights of Smt. 2002 and then continuously from 2020 to 2059. The document Ex. R/4 also shows that on the resumption of the muafi of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji, a mutation entry was made. Although earlier to the resumption of muafi Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji was described as the land holder and also as the tenant: but after the resumption of the muafi. State was described as the land holder while the Idol of Thakurji Laxminarainji as described as a tenant from July 1, 1963. But these documents do not appear to have been considered by the Board of Revenue nor a finding has been given by the Board that Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji held the lands in dispute as khudkasht at the time of resumption of the muafi, Khatedari rights in, Jagir land can only be acquired either in accordance with Section 9 or Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act. 1952. Under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act. khudkasht lands of a Jagirdar shall be deemed to be held by him as a khatedar tenant from the date of resumption of his jagir lands. A similar provision is contained in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which deals with the acquisition of khatedari rights by an ex-lagirdar in khudkasht lands and provides that the estate holder, holding khudkasht land shall become a khatedar tenant thereof on the resumption of an estate and be shall be entitled to all the rights conferred upon him by the Act. 6. Sub-section (23) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act defines 'khudkasht' as under : "23. 'Khudkasht' shall mean land in any part of the State cultivated personally by an estate holder and shall include: (i) land recorded as khudkasht, sir. 6. Sub-section (23) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act defines 'khudkasht' as under : "23. 'Khudkasht' shall mean land in any part of the State cultivated personally by an estate holder and shall include: (i) land recorded as khudkasht, sir. havala, niji-jot, gharkhed in settlement records at the commencement of this Act in accordance with the law in force at the time when such record was made, and (ii) Land allotted after such commencement as khudkasht under any law for the time being in force in any part of the State." The aforesaid definition goes to show that any land cultivated personally by an estate holder would be his khudkasht' land, including the land recorded as such at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and also land allotted thereafter as 'khudkasht'. The expression 'land cultivated personally' has also been defined in sub-section (25) of section 5 of the said Act as under: "25. 'Land cultivated personally' with all its grammetical variations and cognate expressions shall mean land cultivated on one's own account- (i) by one's own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or (iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of one's family/by hired labour or by servants on wages payable 'in cash or in kind, but not by way of a share in crop:- Provided that in the case of a person who is a widow or a minor or is subject to any physical or mental disability or is a member of the Military, Naval, Air Services of India or who, being a student of an educational institution recognised by the State Government is below the age of 25 years, land shall he deemed to be cultivated personally even in the absence of such person's supervision." Learned counsel for the petitioner submit: that land falling within the definition of 'khudkasht' in sub-section (23) of Section 5 should be cultivated personally by the estate holder and for that purpose the land should be cultivated on its own account by hired labour or by servant for wages. Although in the case of a person suffering from a disability or any widow or a minor or student or a member of defence forces one's own labour and even personal supervision has been dispensed with. Although in the case of a person suffering from a disability or any widow or a minor or student or a member of defence forces one's own labour and even personal supervision has been dispensed with. But if the land is recorded as 'khudkasht' of the idol in the settlement records, at the time of the commencement of the Tenancy Act, then such land would squarely fall within the definition of 'khudkasht' as contained in clause (23) of Section 5 of the Tenancy Act. Thus to fall within the category of khudkasht at be time of commencement of the Tenancy Act should be personally cultivated by the estate holder or even if not personally cultivated in the case of a minor or other persons suffering from a disability, then it should be cultivated on behalf of the estate holder by hired labour or servants. 7. The crucial question which was required to be decided in this case by the Board of Revenue was as to whether the land in dispute can be held to be kbudkasht land of idol of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji at the time of resumption of the muafi. If that may be so. then the provisions of Section 13 and Section 16-A of the Tenancy Act would become applicable and upon the resumption of the muafi, the estate holder would automatically become a khatedar tenant of such khudkasht land and the two vendors Manna and Gumana may become sub-tenants holding under and from such khatedar tenant. In that case, the provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Tenancy Act would also become applicable. Whole of the khudkasht land may be sublet or'only a part thereof subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 45, if the bolder of the khudkasht land is a minor or is a person under physical disability or suffers from an infirmity or falls into any ether clause contained in Section 46. Without coming to the conclusion that the lands in dispute were khudkasht lands of the muafidar, the Board would not have come to the conclusion that after the resumption of the muafi, the khatedari tights in such lands vested in the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxmfnarainji and that the vendors Manna and Gumana were merely sub-tenants. Without coming to the conclusion that the lands in dispute were khudkasht lands of the muafidar, the Board would not have come to the conclusion that after the resumption of the muafi, the khatedari tights in such lands vested in the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxmfnarainji and that the vendors Manna and Gumana were merely sub-tenants. The Board of Revenue failed to record any, finding as to whether the lands in dispute were khudkasht lands, either on account of the Idol of Laxminarainji being recorded as such in the revenue records at the time of the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or on account of the fact that such lands were being cultivated on behalf of the idol or on its account, at the time of resumption of the muaf. The Board of Revenue should have considered the documents produced by the parties to come to a conclusion as to whether the lands in dispute were recorded as khudkasht of the Idol of Laxminarainji in the Record of Rights, at the time of commencement of the Tenancy Act. 8. In Puransingh and ors. v. State of Rajasthan (ILR 16 Rajasthan 1105) , it was held by this Court that a tenant must be a person holding land under any other person and as such a land holder entered in the revenue records as khatedar tenant in respect of their own jagir lands cannot derive any benefit from the provisions of Section 9 of the Jagir Resumption Act as khatedari rights arise out of cultivatory possession and not from the Jagir rights. The Board of Revenue should have considered the question as to whether the land in dispute could fall within the term 'khudkasht as defined in clause (23) of Section 5 of the Tenancy Act, after considering the documents and other evidence produced by the parties and then it should have proceeded to decide the question as to whether the Idol of Shri Laxminarainji became a khatedar tenant after the resumption of the muafi. If the lands in dispute were khudkasht lands of the Idol of Laxminarainji before or at the time of resumption of the muafi, then only the Idol could become a khatedar tenant of such lands on the resumption of the muafi. If the lands in dispute were khudkasht lands of the Idol of Laxminarainji before or at the time of resumption of the muafi, then only the Idol could become a khatedar tenant of such lands on the resumption of the muafi. Although Section 9 of the Jagir Resumption Act would have no application for the reasons given by this court in Puransingh's case, yet under Section 10 khatedari rights could devolve upon the Idol of Shri Laxminarainji. Thus for coming to the conclusion as to whether the Idol of Shri Laxminarainji, even as a juristic person, could have acquired khatedari rights upon the resumption of (he muafi would depend on the decision of the question as to whether the lands in dispute fell within the category of khudkasht lands, so far as Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji was concerned. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be proper to send the case back to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision therefor, after considering all the documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. 10. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 2, 1974 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 11. As the matter arises out of an application under Section 175 filed in the year 1966, the Board of Revenue should expedite the disposal of the second appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******