JUDGMENT 1. :- A suit was filed by the deity Murti Radha Damodarji through Karan, Chandrabhan, Bhagwan, Bihari and Shyam stating that the land in question belonged to deity and was let out to the petitioner defendant in Samvat year 2010 for a period of five years. It was the case of the plaintiff that even though the defendant had surrendered the possession in Samvat 2014, but again unlawfully took possession in Samvat 2017 and got himself recorded as khatedar. Th e case of the petitioner defendant was that he was in continuous possession from much earlier to Samvat 2010 i.e. since Samvat 2005 and was not a trespasser and, therefore, could not be ejected. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.4.1978, but on appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.1.1980. The Assistant Collector had given the finding that the petitioner had been mentioned as khatedar in the khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2016 to 2030, but the entries were not correct for the reason that under section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the sub-tenant of the deity did not acquire any khatedari rights. The Revenue Appellate Authority had reversed the judgment of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the defendant petitioner was in possession in Samvat 2006 and the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the petitioner-defendant had ever taken a force able possession in Samvat 2014. The Board of Revenue in the impugned order set aside the order and judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority vide Annexure-11. The reason given by the Board of Revenue is that it will not make any difference at all if the possession of the petitioner is established from Samvat 2006 or 2010 as in either situation the defendant petitioners are to be treated as khatedars only. On the ground that the plaintiff being a perpetual minor, the defendant sub-tenant does not acquire any khatedari rights, the Board of Revenue relying on (1) 1984 RRD 1 and (2) 1987 RRD 261 had held that the khatedari rights could not accrue to a sub-tenant of a deity. On the ground that the plaintiff being a perpetual minor, the defendant sub-tenant does not acquire any khatedari rights, the Board of Revenue relying on (1) 1984 RRD 1 and (2) 1987 RRD 261 had held that the khatedari rights could not accrue to a sub-tenant of a deity. However, the Board of Revenue agreed with the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the plaintiff was dispossessed in Samvat 2014 and also agreed with the finding given by the Assistant Collector that the defendant petitioner was a sub-tenant right from 2006 and contiriued to remain in possession of the land as such and, therefore, such a tenant/sub-tenant cannot be termed as a trespasser and such tenant is liable to be ejected under section 180(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Board of Revenue while accepting the second appeal and reversing the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority had passed the order of eviction under section 180(1)(b) instead of Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which provisions the suit had been initially filed. 2. Being aggrieved against the order Annexure-11 dated 7.8.1987, tie petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question in Khasra No. 4164 situated at village Kama was a muafi land of Shri Radha Damodarji and Basanta was the pujari of the temple and the petitioner was cultivating the same as a tenant and was paying the rent to the muafidar. After coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, all the State Grants including the muafi were resumed and, therefore, the present land also vested in the State and thus the petitioner had become the tenant of the State and started paying the rent to the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier also the private non-petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 had filed a suit of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent which was dismissed on 28.1.1959 wherein it was admitted by the other party that the petitioner was a tenant. It is stated that the muafi was resumed in the year 1962 and at the time of resumption of muafi, the petitioner was in possession of the land as a tenant and was so entered as the recorded khatedar tenant. It is stated that the muafi was resumed in the year 1962 and at the time of resumption of muafi, the petitioner was in possession of the land as a tenant and was so entered as the recorded khatedar tenant. For the reasons that the deity or muafidar or pujari was not a khudkasht at the time of resumption nor it was entered in the revenue record, it is stated that the respondents had no right or title left in the land. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 612 , wherein almost in similar circumstances Pujari of the deity had moved an application for making a reference to the Board of Revenue for changing of the entry in the revenue record in favour of idol, Shri Charbhujaji. The defence of the appellant Deepa was that he had become a khatedar tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the record could not be changed. The reference was accepted which was upheld right upto the High Court. In the aforesaid case, the case of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that the respondent himself had accepted the appellant as tenant in the first proceedings and further that the name of the appellant had been recorded as cultivator by Samvat year 2012 and, therefore, the land could not be recorded as khudkasht of the Jagirdar which would make Section 10 of the Jagir Act inoperative. The findings were that at the time of coming into force of the Act, Deepa's father had been given the land for cultivation on "Panti basis" i.e. share basis. The contention of the appellant was accepted by the Supreme Court to the effect that even the sub-tenant of Khudkasht becomes a khatedar tenant on the required procedure being followed, which must be deemed to have been satisfied because of what has been recorded in the Khasra Girdawari and in such situation by force of Section 9 of the Jagir Act, his right becomes heritable and fully transferable; and so, the contrary view taken by the authorities was not correct. 4. 4. In the present case, it is not disputed that the land was cultivated on paying rent in the year 1952 and in the revenue record the petitioner was recorded as tenant and he became khatedar tenant by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 of the Jagir Act. The provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Jagir Act are reproduced as under: 'Sec.9.-Khatedari rights in Jagir lands-Every tenant in the Jagir land who at the commencement of this Act is entered in the revenue records as the khatedar, pattedar; khademdar or under any other description implying that the tenant has heritable and full transferable right in the tenancy shall continue to have such rights and shall be called a khatedar tenant in respect of such land.' 'Sec.10.-Khatedari right in khudkasht land-As from the date of resumption of any jagir land, any khudkasht land of a jagirdar shall be deemed to be held by the jagirdar as a khatedar tenant and shall be assessed at the village rate. Explanation-In this section, the expression 'village rate' means the rate fixed for a particular class of soil in the current settlement and in an area which is not brought under settlement, the rate as fixed by the Collector after taking into consideration the prevailing rates for similar class of soil, in the adjourning village or villages.' 5. In the year 1955, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force w.e.f. 15.10.1955 and by virtue of Section 15, the petitioners who had acquired the khatedari rights in accordance with the provisions of Jagir Act are to be treated as khatedar tenant. In the year 1955, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force w.e.f. 15.10.1955 and by virtue of Section 15, the petitioners who had acquired the khatedari rights in accordance with the provisions of Jagir Act are to be treated as khatedar tenant. Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is reproduced as under: 'Sec.15-Khatedar tenants-(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 16; and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 180, every person who, at the commencement of this Act, is a tenant of land otherwise than as a sub-tenant or a tenant or Khudkasht or who is, after the commencement of this Act, admitted as a tenant otherwise than a sub-tenant or tenant of khudkasht or an allottee of land under and in accordance with provisions of this Act or of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956) or who acquires khatedari rights in accordance with provisions of this Act or of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (Rajasthan Act, VI of 1952), or of any other law for the time being in force shall be khatedar tenant and shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to all the rights conferred; and be subject to all the liabilities imposed on khatedar tenants by this Act: Provided that no khatedari rights shall accrue under this section to any tenant to whom land is or has been let out temporarily in Gang Canal, Bhakra, Chambal or Jawai Project area or any other area notified in this behalf by the State Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), khatedari rights shall not accrue thereunder to any person to whom land had been let out before the commencement of this Act by the State Government in furtherance of the 'Grow more Food Campaign' or under some special order subject to some specified conditions or in pursuance of some statutory or non-statutory rules and who shall have, before such commencement, made a default in securing the objective of such campaign or a breach of any such order, condition or rule. (3) Any person referred to in sub-section (2) may, within three years from the date of commencement of this Act and on payment of a court fee of twenty five naye paise, apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction praying for a declaration that he acquired khatedari right under sub-section (1) in the land held by him. (4) Such application may be made on any of the following grounds, namely; (a) that the land held by him was let out to him after the commencement of this Act; (b) that it was not let out to him in any of the circumstances specified in sub-section (2); (c) that when the land was let out to him he was not apprised of such circumstances; (d) that he had, before such commencement, made no default or breach of the nature specified in sub-section (2). (5) The Assistant Collector shall, upon the presentation of an application under sub-section (3), make inquiry in the prescribed manner and afford reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard and shall, if he does not reject the application, declare the applicant to have become khatedar tenant of his holding in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the sub-section (1).' 6. In view of the legal position, if the name of the tenant is recorded in the revenue record as khatedar or under any caption, the tenant becomes khatedar tenant by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act even the land belong to deity, but cultivated by the tenant. Applying the provisions of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, by perusal of Annexures 1, 2 and 3, it is revealed that the land was being cultivated by the petitioner ever since Samvat 2006 corresponding to the year 1949 and, in the year 1952 he was recorded as tenant cultivating the land and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Jagir Act, he had become the khatedar tenant of the land as per the ratio enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepa (supra), which fact is also strengthened by the fact that the respondent had admitted the petitioner to be the tenant at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of the rent as far back in the year 1951. 7. 7. In view of the legal position as discussed above and in view of the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Jagir Act read with Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, there is no escape but to hold that the petitioner had acquired the status of khatedar tenant and as such the claim of the respondents was not legally maintainable in favour of private respondents and, therefore, the order Annexure-11 passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 7.8.1987 (Annexure-11) is quashed.Petition Allowed. *******