Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 127 (RAJ)

Sanwariya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

1998-01-27

RAJENDRA SAXENA

body1998
Honble SAXENA, J.–Heard, perused the relevant record. (2). At the time of resumption of Jagir (Muafi) of the Deity, the disputed agri- cultural land was recorded in personal cultivation (khudkashat) of the Deity and petitioners No. 1 to 4s father Mohan Lal alongwith Sheo Narain and Rameshwar were recorded as Pujaris (Shebaits) of the Deity. This fact is very well evidenced by Jamabandi of Samvat 2013 to 2016 also. However, later on the land in question was mutated in the name of the said Pujaris and was subsequently partitioned the same amongst themselves vide mutation Nos. 117,240 & 340. (3). On a reference made by the Additional Collector, Jaipur District; the Board of Revenue after giving an opportunity to the parties has rightly held that since the land in question was recorded in the khudkashat of the Deity, who is a perpetual minor, and the status of Mohan Lal and others was only that of a Pujari, they could not have acquired Khatedari rights in the land in question u/s. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and set aside the impugned mutation. (4). Shri Mishra contended that in this case the reference u/S. 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 was made after about 22 years and that in view of the law laid down in the case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1) invocation of power by the Board of Revenue was unjust. In that case, the disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Pujari Laxminarain Temple. Some time in the year 1951, the Pujari died and the land was ordered to be resumed and confiscated to the State on the ground that the land was a Muafi land and the Pujari had left no legal heirs. So by way of escheat it was ordered to be resumed by the State. After the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force, the Pujari filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy on the ground that at the time of commencement of the said Act he was in possession of the land. The suit was decreed on 12.10.1957, wherein the State Government was also impleaded as a party. No appeal was filed by the State against the said judgment and decree and subsequently in the Revenue record mutation entries was made in favour of the petitioner on 22.9.1958. The suit was decreed on 12.10.1957, wherein the State Government was also impleaded as a party. No appeal was filed by the State against the said judgment and decree and subsequently in the Revenue record mutation entries was made in favour of the petitioner on 22.9.1958. However, on the report of the Tehsildar, the Additional Collector made reference to the Board of Revenue on 27.12.1983 u/s. 232 of the Act. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference and set aside the decree passed by the Assistant Collector and cancelled the said mutation and restored the earlier position. Anandilal petitioner filed the writ petition against the said order of the Board of Revenue and prayed for the declaration that he had acquired khatedari rights of the disputed land u/s. 15 of the Act. Appare- ntly, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable with the case at hand because, in the instant case at the time of resumption of Jagir in the records of right (Khatoani) the land in question was recorded in the Khudkashat (personal cultivation) of the Deity of the temple and the status of Mohan Lal and his brothers was shown as Pujari and the Manager of the Deity. After resumption of Jagir, the Deity ipso facto became the Khatedar of the land in question and the Pujari could not legally acquire Khatedari rights either u/s. 13 or 15 or 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Moreover, in view of the clear, cogent and specific provisions of Sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act; late Mohan Lal and his brothers could not have legally acquired Khatedari rights of the Deity. The impugned mutations in favour of the Pujari were ab initio void and non est and those could be challenged at any time. Therefore, Anandi Lals case is clearly distinguishable and the same does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. (5). Hence for the reasons mentioned above, in my considered opinion, the impugned order dt. 27.5.1988 passed by the learned Board of Revenue is legal and the same does not suffer from any error apparent on record or illegality or error of jurisdiction. This writ petition is, therefore, without force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed.