JUDGMENT 1. - The Deity, a perpetual minor, being idol, seems to be helpless, amusing or mussing over his rights on the land. Lot of litigation been offered or thrown on the idol, claiming right over his land, on the' basis of some entries in the revenue record, adverse possession, mutation been made in the name of pujari and further been sold to other persons by him. The rights over the land have also been claimed on the basis of provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'). Lot of controversy has been raised in regard to deity not being khudkast and even the land being the Muafi land in the name of the deity, after the above Act of 1952 and also the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') been brought into force, the rights over the land of the deity has been claimed on the basis of entries in the revenue record. In the Reference made by the concerning authorities under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') in regard to cancellation of mutation made on the land of the deity, the point of delay has also been raised more emphatically. 2. There have been conflicting opinion of this court and even on some of the issues referred above, the court is silent. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) "Ramlal & am Vs. Board of Revenue & ors" [ 1990(1) RLR 161 ] , while holding the deity/idol as a juristic person, having right to hold the property including the agricultural land, held that the land in question not been khudkast of the deity and was cultivated by tenants as such after resumption of jagirs, the land should be treated as khatedari land of the tenants. In another judgment, the learned Single Judge in case of (2) "Bal Kishan Vs. Board of Revenue & ors." [ 2000(1) RLR 69 ] , while relying on the judgment of the Apx Court in the case of (3) Deepa Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." ([19961 1 SCC 612) , held that the petitioner acquiring tenancy rights over the Muafi land of deity under the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1952. 4. State of Rajasthan & ors." ([19961 1 SCC 612) , held that the petitioner acquiring tenancy rights over the Muafi land of deity under the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1952. 4. The Division Bench of this court in the case of (4) "Mangi Lal & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." [1997(2) RLR 755] , while holding that the deity/idol is treated to be minor or physically disabled person, acquires khatedari rights over the land and such rights cannot be transferred to any other person and even necessary corrections can be made in spite of inordinate delay. The rights of the deity have further been upheld by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of (5) "Temple of Thakurji Village Kansar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors." (1998[31 WLC [Raj.] 387 ) and (6) "Ram Lal & ors. Vs. Board of Revenue" (2000(1) RLR 258=RLW 1999 [3] Raj. 1792) and also the case of (7) "Naini Bai & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors." [ 2000(1) RLR 143 ] . The point of delay in making Reference though otherwise dealt in case of land belonging to SC/ST has also been considered by this Court in case of (8) "Lad Bai & ors. Vs. Board of Revenue" [2000(1) RLR 123] . 5. In most of such cases, the matter passes through revenue courts at various levels. In absence of any settled position of law on the various issues as referred above, in regard to the land belonging to deity, conflicting and contradictory orders have been passed by the revenue courts, thereby increasing the number of writ petitions before this court. 6. After having carefully considered various provisions of different Acts as referred to above and also the judgments cited at the Bar, in my opinion, in the interest of the deity, the State, public at large and also in the interest of justice, it will be just and proper that the whole issue in regard to land belonging to deity/idol, in reference to the provisions of the Acts and the issues pointed above, may be referred to Larger Bench so that the whole controversy may set at rest and proper guidance may also be given to the lower courts. 7. 7. 1 have given only few examples but looking to the gravity and large number of litigation's in this regard, the Full Bench may also frame proper issues, after calling members of the Bar to assist the Court. 8. The matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief justice for his kind consideration and further necessary action as expeditiously as possible. *******