Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 937 (RAJ)

Devasthan Board, Sirohi v. State of Rajasthan

1999-07-27

B.J.SHETHNA

body1999
Honble SHETHNA, J.–It is unfortunate that by way of this writ petition none else but Devasthan Board, Sirohi has challenged the impugned order dated 9.10.98 (Annex.7) passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the Board of Revenue upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent No.1 Madan Singh before it that the reference was not maintainable in its form as it is. (2). Record from the Collector was called for which is before us. I have gone through the entire record which consist of an application of Madan Singh respondent No.3 beginning justice that he is an old man of nearly 70 years and his health is deteriorating but still his case was not decided. It is good that at least in his life time the case was heard and decided and fortunately in his favour by the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 9.10.1998 (Annex.7). Not satisfying with the impugned decision/order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.10.1998 the petitioner Devasthan Board dragged respondent No.3, Madan Singh before this Court by way of this writ petition. Reference was made under Sec. 82 of the Rajasthan of Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `the Act) by the Collector Sirohi on the averments that the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 2112, 2113 and 2114 admeasuring 6 bighas 14 biswas is `bawri suwag which was formally entered in the name of idol Sarneshwarji Temple and which was cultivated by sub-tenant Chena. Later on it was entered into the name of Lala and Khatedari was given to him under Sec. 19(i) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Lala sold it to Madan Singh-respondent No.3 (at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Madan Singh-respondent no.3 transferred the land during the pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue as he was fed up with the proceedings). Under these circumstances, the reference was made to cancel the mutation number 14 dated 19.6.1962 and mutation No. 560 dated 7.12.1968 and the order of S.D.O. Sirohi dated 5.2.1968. Thus, therefore, there was a delay of as many as 19 years in making the reference. (3). Before the Board of Revenue preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the facts were not mentioned as per enteries of the revenue records and the land does not belong to Sarneshwarji. Thus, therefore, there was a delay of as many as 19 years in making the reference. (3). Before the Board of Revenue preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the facts were not mentioned as per enteries of the revenue records and the land does not belong to Sarneshwarji. According to the Madan Singh, respondent No.3, originally there were two holdings, one khasra No. 2112, 2113 and 2114 admeasuring 6 bighas 14 biswas known as Bawri Suwag and another set of holdings was khasra No. 2195 to 2197 admeasuring 16 bighas and 1 biswa which was known as ``Nathuji wala jav. Those lands were jagir land as per jamabandi of samwat year 2000 and they were recorded in the name of Sarneshwarji in the sub-tenants were Chena in Bawari Suwag lands and Sankala s/o Poonma in the land known as `Nathuji wala Jav. On the application dated 31.12.1948 made before the Revenue Member of eartwhile State of Sirohi the aforesaid lands namely Bawari Suwag and Nathuji Wala Jav land were sought to be exchanged with the holdings of `Sanwa Arhat. The said application was returned for clarification that there were two Sanwa Arhat, one is chhota sanwa and another is Mota Sanwa. On the report it was stated that exchange be made to Mota Sanwa and accordingly the desire exchange was sanctioned by the then Chief Minister of earstwhile State of Sirohi Shri Gokul Bhai Bhatt on 4.1.1949. (at this stage learned counsel Shri Purohit pointed out that it does not bear the signature of the then Chief Minister). By no stretch of imagination it can be said that such a document of 1949 is either concocted or got up document. As per the order dated 4.1.1949 passed by the then Chief Minister of earstwhile Sirohi State the land of Khasra No. 1793 to 1799 and 1800 to 1804 and 1810 measuring 42 bighas 6 biswa was entered in the name of Sarneshwarji. Thus, Arhat Mota Sanwa from Khalsa land was entered in the Maufi of Sarneshwar ji on 5.4.49 and Arhat Suwag was entered from Maufi to Khalsa land. Thus, the preliminary objection was raised to that effect that unless and until the order passed by the then Chief Minister of earstwhile Sirohi State stands and it is not cancelled or set aside by the competent authority, the reference in question was not maintainable. (4). Thus, the preliminary objection was raised to that effect that unless and until the order passed by the then Chief Minister of earstwhile Sirohi State stands and it is not cancelled or set aside by the competent authority, the reference in question was not maintainable. (4). One more objection was raised by Madan Singh-present respondent No.3 that since the land had already been taken from Sarneshwar ji in the year 1949 and another group of land was given to him under the State order through the Chief Minister, therefore, since 1949 the land was not in the name of idol and on that point the matter was remanded by the Board of Revenue by its order dt. 4.5.92 to the effect that what was the position of record of rights in Samwat year 2008. Now from the documents on record it is clear that from 1949 onwards the said land never remained deitys land and in its place the land which was given in exchange of Khasra No. 1793 to 1800 and 1801 to 1804 and 1810 were recorded as Sarneshwarjis land as per the Jamabandi of 2016. At this stage, it may be stated that the said land was sold by the present petitioner Devasthan Board through registered sale deed on 5.6.72. (5). The aforesaid preliminary objections were upheld by the Board of Revenue as it was of the opinion that till the order dated 4.1.49 passed by the former Chief Minister of earstwhile Sirohi State, stands, this reference was not maintainable because as per the State order the land bearing Khasra No. 2112 to 2114 known as Bawari Suwag and another set of holding that is khasra no. 2195 to 2197 known as Nathuji Wala Jav were transferred in the Khalsa land on the application made by earstwhile State through its revenue member Shri A.C. Singhi on 31.12.1948. Thus, the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the said land no longer remained as Sarneshwar jis land. (6). Under the circumstances, Board of Revenue held that unless and until the order passed by the then Chief Minister of State of Sirohi on 4.1.49 is set aside the land of Khasra No. 2112 to 2114 cannot be said to be Sarneshwar jis land. (6). Under the circumstances, Board of Revenue held that unless and until the order passed by the then Chief Minister of State of Sirohi on 4.1.49 is set aside the land of Khasra No. 2112 to 2114 cannot be said to be Sarneshwar jis land. The Board of Revenue has also observed in its operative part of order that land of Khasra No. 2195 to 2197 was already acquired by the State for public purposes as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar before the Board of Revenue. (7). In view of the above clear cut findings arrived at by the Board of Revenue, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Board of Revenue committed any error much less error on law or jurisdictional error in passing the order and holding that the reference made under Sec. 82 of the Act was not maintainable on the facts of this case. It may also be stated that the land which came in the share of Sarneshwarji was also sold by the petitioner Devasthan Board, Sirohi through the registered sale deed dt. 5.6.72. (8). Under the circumstances, in my humble opinion, it was not proper for the petitioner like Devasthan Board to claim the land which was given in exchange.. Be that as it may, considering the reasons assigned by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order, it cannot be said that Board of Revenue has committed any error in dismissing the reference made under Sec. 82 of the Act as not maintainable. Review petition was rightly rejected by the Board of Revenue by its order at Annexure-9. (9). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit or substance, accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed.