JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been presented by the petitioners for quashing the order dated September 13,1991 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan whereby the Board affirmed the order of the Jagir Commissioner dated March 31,1989. 2. The dispute pertains to property called as "Chhota Ramdwara" situated in Sangram Singh Colony, near Diggi House, behind Maharani's College, Jaipur. In matter concerning the resumption of "udak" jagir of the respondent No. 1, on a question being raised by the jagirdar respondent No. 1 under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act"), the Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan Jaipur, by his order dated March 31, 1989, held that the said property was the personal property of Ram Swaroop respondent No. 1 under Section 23(1) of the Act. This order of the Jagir Commissioner was affirmed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (for short, "the Board") by its order dated 13-9-1991. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (i.e. the Board and the Jagir Commissioner) have wrongly construed the patta of Samvat year 1983 and have erred in holding that the grant made by it was a personal grant. It was argued that on a true and correct interpretation of the patta, there can be no doubt that the jagir of Kishanpole was for religious and charitable purposes and should have been treated as 'bhog" grant and not a grant to Swami Radhaballabh in his personal capacity. It was also submitted that the grant was also void ab initio because it was made during the minority of Maharaja Ram Singhji and it was not got confirmed from the Resident as required by Rule 18 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. The learned counsel also urged that the temple of Mahadevji was constructed in the disputed property and it was open to the public at large since its very in option. The respondent No. 1 himself and applied for registration of the property as public trust under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and this showed that respondent No. 1 never treated the property as his individual property and treated it as a public trust. The respondent No. 1 himself and applied for registration of the property as public trust under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and this showed that respondent No. 1 never treated the property as his individual property and treated it as a public trust. Lastly, it was contended that the property was granted to celebate mahant belonging to Ram Sanehi sect. However, respondent No. 1 was a married man and the property is liable to be resumed by the State even on this ground. 4. We may extract the findings arrived at by the Board in its judgment Annex. 6. The Board held that : 1. On a construction of the Patta of Samvat 1893, it appears that the property in question was granted to Swami Ram Ballabh Chela of Swami Ram Das in his personal capacity and not for persons belonging to Ram Sanehi sect. 2. There was no evidence that any temple of Mahadevji existed on the land at the time of the grant of Patta in Samvat 1893. Today there existed a small temple of Mahadveji towards a comer of the land. This temple was constructed after the land had been granted. The jagir land in question was in no way pertaining to or connecting with any temple. 3. For last over 150 years the property is being used by the grantee and his descendents as his Jagir-land. The property could not be considered to be that of a public temple. The grant had not been made to the diety of Mahadevji. 4. In a corner room, there was a photo in a frame of Ramsanehi which could be at the best, treated as private temple. There was no evidence that believes of Ramsanehi sect performed any worship or have any right to do so in this Ramsanehi temple. 5. It is true that the grant was made during the minority of late Maharaja Ram Singh. Since then matmis had been sanctioned in 1935 and 1967 and the property was being recorded in the revenue records as jagir land. The State could not, therefore, contend that the grant was void ab initio under rule 18 of the Matmi Rules. 6. There was no condition attached to the grant that the grantee of this jagir would remain unmarried or that such jagirs can only be held by celebates. 5. The State could not, therefore, contend that the grant was void ab initio under rule 18 of the Matmi Rules. 6. There was no condition attached to the grant that the grantee of this jagir would remain unmarried or that such jagirs can only be held by celebates. 5. Consequences of resumption of jagir lands are detailed in Section 22 of the Act. Under Section 21, the Government by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette appoints a date for the resumption of any class of jagir land and different dates can be appointed for different classes of jagir lands. The Government of Rajasthan resumed the categories of jagirs, namely, religious and non-religious jagirs by issuing separate and distinct notifications on different dates. The last date of resumption of even the smallest-non-religious jagirs was 1-11-58 vide notification No. F. 1(290) Rev. (A)/5- 17153 dated 14-10-58. By another notification No. F. 1 (63) Rev. A/61 dated 21-6-63 all religious jagirs were resumed with effect from 1-7-63. Two "udak" jagirs of Kishanpole and Bhawani Shankerpura were resumed as non-religious jagirs on 1.11.58. 6. As a matter of fact, section 23 of the Act carved out an exception to Section 22 of the Act and despite resumption of jagir lands, properties of various categories specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 23 were to continue to belong or be held by the jagirdar or any other person. If any question arose whether any property was of the nature referred to in Sub-sec. (1) of Section 23, it was to be referred to the Jagir Commissioner, who was to, after holding the prescribed enquiry, make such order thereon as he deemed fit. In the present case, respondent No. 1 raised the question that precinct called "Chhota Ramdwara" situated outside Kishanpole gate in Sangram Colony, Jaipur were covered by Sub-sec. (1) of Section 23. The precincts of "Chhota Ramdwara" consisted of a pucca building and it was surrounded by a compound wall and it had a small Shiv temple in it. The Jagir Commissioner held the prescribed enquiry and held that:- (1) The land known as Chhota Ramdwara in Kishanpole Jaipur was granted as a "udak" jagir to the predecessor-in-interest of Mahant Ram Swaroop by "Maji Bhatiyaniji" for purposes of construction of a residential house and bagichi. The Jagir Commissioner held the prescribed enquiry and held that:- (1) The land known as Chhota Ramdwara in Kishanpole Jaipur was granted as a "udak" jagir to the predecessor-in-interest of Mahant Ram Swaroop by "Maji Bhatiyaniji" for purposes of construction of a residential house and bagichi. (2) The matmi in favour of the present Mahant Ram Swaroop sanctioned by the State Government on 9-10-64 cannot be questioned by him and it was not within his competence to adjudicate thereon. (3) The decision of interse dispute between the mahant and the objectors was not within the competence of Jagir Commissioner. (4) If the objectors had acquired any right or interest in the property known as Chhota Ramdwara, they could assert it, if they so liked, in a competent court. (5) The property known as "Chhota Ramdwara" was personal property of Mahant Ram Swaroop under Section 23(1) of the Jagir Act of 1952. 7. We may here mention that in Special Appeal No. 44/92 filed by Devki Nandan as against Ram Swaroop and decided by us today [Judgment reported in 1992(1) RLR 588 ] the question relating to the nature of this very grant and its character had come for consideration and we have in that appeal given following findings, namely: (1) The terms of the grant by themselves do not at all indicate that it was a grant to Swami Ram Ballabh (predecessor-in-title of Ram Swaroop) for any public religious or charitable purpose. It was neither a grant to any deity or mutt nor any other charitable purpose for the grant was specified. The character of the grant was "udak" and udak grant was a grant given out of charity by the grantor. It was quite different from a grant made for charitable or religious purpose. The grant was by way of charity for secular purposes. (2) Original grant was made on Miti Jaith Sudi 7 Samvat 1893 during the period of minority administration of former ruler of Jaipur State Maharaja Ram Singh without the approval of the Resident and the grant was, therefore, to be deemed to be invalid ab initio on account of the provisions contained in Rule 18(1) of Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. (2) Original grant was made on Miti Jaith Sudi 7 Samvat 1893 during the period of minority administration of former ruler of Jaipur State Maharaja Ram Singh without the approval of the Resident and the grant was, therefore, to be deemed to be invalid ab initio on account of the provisions contained in Rule 18(1) of Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. However, the Government of Rajasthan in Revenue Deprtment by order dated 9-10-64 conveyed the sanction of the Governor for appointment of Ram Swaroop respondent No. 1 as Chela of late Ram Narain in respect of udak lands outside Kishanpole, Jaipur. Thus since this recognition of succession was made in favour of respondent No. 1 after February 9, 1937, the void an initio grant made by the minority administration on Jeth Sudi 7 Samvat 1893 stood validated under the said provisions of Jaipur Matmi Rules which rules themselves had been validated by the Rajasthan State Legislature by enacting the Jaipur Matmi Rules (Validation) Act, 1961. Jaipur Matmi Rules were also declared at "existing jagir law" within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act for the purposes of the Act as well s the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 and any other law relating to jagirs or jagirdars. (3) There might exist a small Shiv temple within the precincts but that alone does not make the grant as a grant to the deity. There was no mention of any Shiva temple in the Patta of Samvat Year 1893 and there was no evidence to show that any Shiva temple was constructed by Seventh Bhataniji within the precints before making the grant. Much less there was a finding that Shiva temple was a public temple. Admissions made by Ram Swaroop in his application dated 23-7-1964 presented before Asstt. Commissioner Devasthan have amply been established by him to be false and based upon incorrect understanding of the jagir law pertaining to State grants in force. The presumption of truth attaching to the admissions stood rebutted by Ram Swaroop. 8. On the above points, our findings are the same in this writ petition as well. We need not enter into detailed reasonings in support of above findings. Suffice it to state that we adopt all those reasonings which we have given in Special Appeal No. 44/92 in relation to these findings pertaining to the 'udak' jagir in question. 8. On the above points, our findings are the same in this writ petition as well. We need not enter into detailed reasonings in support of above findings. Suffice it to state that we adopt all those reasonings which we have given in Special Appeal No. 44/92 in relation to these findings pertaining to the 'udak' jagir in question. 9. We would here like to mention the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Act. It inter alia provides that if in the course of a proceeding under the Act any question relating to title, right or interest in any jagir land arises and the question so arising has not already been determined by a competent authority, the Jagir Commissioner shall proceed to made an inquiry into the merits of the question so arising and pass such orders thereon as he deems fit. Sub-sec. (2) to Section 37 was inserted by Section 2 of the Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1959 and it provides that any question referred to in Section 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 shall be inquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court declared by the provisions of the said Act competent to do so. Then Sub-sec. (3) provides that every other question excluded by Sub-sec. (1) from the jurisdiction of the Jagir Commissioner shall be inquired into and decided by a revenue officer or court competent to do so under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or the rules made thereunder. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955 refers interalia to the questions relating to the recognition of succession to the rights and title of jagirdars in jagirs. Section 16 of the said Act provides that "Nothing contained in the Act or the Rules shall apply or deemed ever to have applied to an application by the holder of a State-grant to nominate a Chela as his successor and to the grant of such sanction if, according to the existing jagir law by which holder is governed, such sanction is a condition precedent to the nomination for the purpose of succession to the State-grant; and the State Government or other authority competent under such law to entertain such an application and to grant such sanction shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, continue to exercise the powers conferred by that law. It was in pursuance of these powers that the Rajasthan State Government had by its order conveyed, by letter No. F. 1 A(2) Rev. A/64 dated 9-10-64, the sanction of the Governor for appointment of Ram Swaroop as Chela to Ram Narayan in respect, amongst others, of "udak lands" of Qasba, Jaipur, Kishanpole on payment of an amount of Rs. 8/7/3 as matmi matalba as recommended by the Board of Revenue. By this, the matmi stood validated in respect of the State-grant in question. 10. The precincts called "Chhota Ramdwara" are included in an enclosure. It has private buildings, a place of worship in the form of a small Shiva private temple, house site, bagichi and land appertaining to the buildings. They fall within clauses (b) and (c) of Section 23(1) of the Act and shall, therefore, continue to be held by respondent No. 1 and consequences of resumption mentioned in Section 22 of the Act would not ensue or follow in relation to them. The decision of the Jagir Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is correct and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******