JUDGMENT 1. - Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both these writ petitions, they have been heard finally and decided by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and given thoughtful consideration to the material available on record. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was already in possession of the land in question much prior to the introduction of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952) came into force i.e. Samwat 2009 (1952). Sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the Act of 1952, which stipulates the consequences of resumption are as under: (1) As from the date of resumption of any jagir lands notwithstanding anything contained in any existing jagir law applicable thereto but save as otherwise provided in this Act, (a) all rights, title and interest of the Jagirdar and of every other person claiming through him (X X X X) in his jagir lands, including forest, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village sites, hats, bazars and mela grounds and mines and minerals whether being worked or not, shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances; (b) all rights, title and interests created in or over the jagir by the jagirdar or his predecessor-in-interest shall, as against the Government, cease and determine; (c) all rents and cesses in respect of any holding (including any land leased by or on behalf of the jagirdar for any purpose other than agriculture) in the jagir land for any period after the date of resumption which, but for such resumption, would have been payable to the jagirdar, shall be payable to the Government;.... . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is a sub-tenant of late Mangya Meena and therefore, since the tenancy of original tenant Mangya was not cancelled, he was in cultivatory possession of the land ever since 1952 and the question of resumption of sub tenancy of the petitioner by the State Government upon introduction of the Act of 1952 would not arise. 5. 5. His further contention is that as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Tenancy Act), every person who was not so entered in the records but was a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land, other than grove land the rights shall accrue to such person. 6. Another contention as advanced by the learned counsel is that the land was a Muafi land in the name of Deity, which is a perpetual minor and which was in possession of late Mangya through whom the petitioners are claiming their legal rights, the land held by the Deity could not be resumed by the State Government even upon the introduction of the Act of 1952 or when the Act of 1955 came into force. 7. I have examined the aforesaid contentions as advanced by the learned counsel at the bar with reference to the finding recorded by the courts below, i.e. the Additional Collector as well as the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue in its impugned order dated 4.5.98 (Ann.3) has observed that on a request made by the State Government under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956) through the Additional Collector Tonk vide order dated 18.1.1986, the matter was taken up by the Board for detailed examination. The Board after examining the matter has categorically observed that the court below had issued notices to the non-petitioners but despite notices, they remained absent and as such, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. It has been further observed that on the basis of the entries made in the revenue record, the learned Additional Collector found that in the Khatauni of Samwat year 2011 to 2030 the land in dispute has been shown in Col No. 3 as Muafi land of the Deity and the Pujaris of the temple were Prabhu (non-petitioner No. 3) and Mangya through whom the petitioners are claiming their cultivatory and possessory rights as Legal Representatives. 8. 8. It is only after perusal of the material made available before the Revenue Court, a categorical finding has been recorded by the Board of Revenue to the effect that in Samwat 2011 to 2030 the land in dispute was shown in the name of Muafi Mandir Shri Murli Ji and Prabhu son of Shri Gopi Nath and Mangya son of Shri Ram Narayan as Pujaris. 9. The contention advanced by the learned counsel before the Board of Revenue was that since the land in question belonging to a Deity cannot be transferred in any manner whatsoever to any other person and the Deity being a perpetual minor, the person who is in cultivatory possession of the land shall automatically acquire the possessory right, being as a tenant or as a sub-tenant over the same. The learned Board of Revenue accepted the reference made by the Additional Collector, Tonk vide its impugned order dated 18.1.86 and the entries made in the revenue record in the name of non-petitioners were set aside with a further direction that the disputed land may be entered in the name of a Deity as mentioned in the order under reference. 10. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Board of Revenue dated 4.5.98 (SBCWP No. 4171/99)/2.5.97 (SBCWP No. 4170/99) have come up before this court by way of the present writ petitions. 11. In the matter of Smt. Naini Bai and Others Vs. State (SB CWP No. 3490/99) decided on 16.8.99 , similar questions of law had arisen for consideration. The said writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable wherein it was observed by this court that the petitioners who are admittedly sub-tenants of the Muafi land and as per their own statement, the land in question stood resumed with effect from 1st July, 1963, i.e. after the issuance of Notification by the State Govt. are admittedly not entitled to claim any continuity over the said land. are admittedly not entitled to claim any continuity over the said land. The petitioners have not been able to show any document on record from which it can be inferred that consequent upon the resumption of land by the State Government as on the date when the Act of 1952 came into force, they had applied for permission of the State Government to continue in possession of the said land as Khudkasht or even as sub-tenants or had sought any declaration from the Court regarding the same. The law is well established that even as regards the khatedari rights, the same can be acquired only if the tenant/sub-tenant, as the case may be, is admitted by the person having the right to let out the land in his/her favour which admittedly cannot be granted against the express provisions of Statute i.e. the Act of 1952 when the land of all those persons, who were in possession of Khudkasht or Muafi land stood vested with the State Government consequent upon the resumption of their lands. 12. Likewise in the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any document by virtue of which late Mangya through whom the petitioners are claiming their possessory rights as sub-tenants, had sought express authorisation in writing from the State Government claiming continuity as regards their possession over the land in question. 13. Section 19 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:- "19. Conferment of right on certain tenants of Khudkasht and sub-tenants.-(1) Every person who, at the commencement of this Act, (a) was entered in the annual registers then current as a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land other than grove land? or (b) was not so entered but was a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land, other than grove land? or (b) was not so entered but was a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land, other than grove land? shall, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1959, hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the appointed date, become, subject to the other provisions contained in this Chapter, the Khatedar tenant of such part of the land held by him as does not exceed the minimum area prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 180 or exceeds the maximum area from which such person is liable to ejectment under clause (d) of the said sub-section of the said section and rights in improvements in that part of the said land shall also accrue to such persons: Provided that Khatedari rights or right in improvements shall not so:- (i) if such part of the said land is held from any of the persons enumerated in section 46, or (ii) if such rights therein may not accrue under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 15 or under section 15-A or under section 15-B or under section 16, or (iii) if such person has, after the commencement of this Act and before the appointed date, ceased to be such tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant by virtue of lawful surrender or abandonment in accordance with the provisions of this Act or because of his having been ejected in accordance with those provisions by and under the decree or order of a competent revenue court. (1-A) Subject to the exceptions contained in the proviso to sub:- section (1), every person referred to in that sub-section shall, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1961 hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "appointed day", become, subject to the other provisions contained in this chapter, the Khatedar tenant of that part of the land held by him in which he has not acquired Khatedari rights under sub-section (1), if before the appointed day no proceeding for his ejectment under clause (a) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 180 shall have been started within the time limit prescribed by section 182A or if on that day no such proceedings previously started might have been pending. (1AA) Every person who, on the 31st day of December, 1969 was entered in the annual registers then current as the tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant or was not so entered, but was a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land other than grove land, shall, subject to the exceptions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1), as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1979 hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 'said date' become, subject to other provisions contained in this chapter, the khatedar or tenant of that part of the land held by him in which he has not acquired khatedari rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) if before the said date, no proceedings from his ejectment under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 180 shall have started within the time, limit prescribed in section 182A or if on that date, no such proceeding previously started might have been pending: Provided that no khatedari rights shall accrue under the sub- section in the land which has been, or is liable to be declared surplus under any law relating to the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings: Provided further that no khatedari rights shall accrue under this sub-section on the land belonging to the schedule caste or scheduled tribe but it shall not be the case if the sub-tenant is the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe: Provided also that the acquisition of Khatedari rights under this sub-section shall be subject to the provisions of section 17 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973). (2) Every tenant of khudkasht or sub-tenant referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) claiming that the rights mentioned in that sub-section accrued to him on the appointed date in the whole or any part of his holding shall, within two years of that date and on payment of a court-fee of (Fifty naya paise), apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction, praying for a declaration that such rights accrued to him as aforesaid, and the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 15 shall apply to such application and such tenant of khudkasht or sub-tenant shall not be regarded to have become the khatedar tenant of his holding or part, as the case may be, until he has obtained the declaration so prayed for." 14. Section 13 of the Act of 1955 reads thus:- "13. (Khatedari rights upon resumption (or abolition)-On the resumption (or abolition) of an estate under any law in force in the whole or any part of the State, the estate-holder holding Khudkasht shall become a Khatedar tenant thereof and shall be entitled to all the rights conferred and be subject to all the liabilities imposed, on a Khatedar tenant by or under this Act: Provided that the Zamindar or Biswedar holding Khudkasht land on the abolition of his estate under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, shall become the malik of such Khudkasht land and shall be entitled to all the rights conferred and subject to all the liabilities imposed on a Khatedar tenant by a under this Act." 15. In my view as on the introduction of the Act of 1952 (Act 6 of 1952) published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) on 16.2.1952, all the agricultural lands including the Jagir/Khudkasht/Muafi lands stood vested with the State Government. 16. It is explicity clear that nobody has any right to claim possession, 'title or interest over the land which admittedly stood vested with the State Government by operation of law consequent upon commencement of the Act of 1952. In the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, the petitioners, who are admittedly sub-tenants of Muafi land as per their own statement, which stood resumed with effect from 1.7.1963, have thus no right much less any possessory or legal right over the same. 17. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. 17. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. My observations are fortified by the DB Judgment of this Court in the matter of Durga Lal Vs. Shankerlal (1984 RRD 940) . The status of the petitioner over the land is not better than that of a trespasser and hence he is liable to eviction by observing due process of law, if the respondents are so advised by having resorted to the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petitions stand disposed of summarily. Petition Disposed of summarily. *******