Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 693 (RAJ)

Kheru Khan v. Murti Sh. Narsinghji

2001-04-23

VIPIN CHANDRA SHARMA

body2001
SHARMA, Member.–This application is for review under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151 C.P.C. regarding review of decision of S.B. dated 5.11.1999. (2). By this order since the petitioners were not giving the cost of Rs. 100 as per earlier order, therefore, the revision was dismissed after hearing both the parties. In the interest of justice this revision is again taken on number and now the petitioners will pay cost ordered as, per the earlier orders and now this case is being decided on merits. (3). The main case Kheru vs. Murti Shri Narsingh is a revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and against the order of R.A.A. Dausa dated 22.11.1997. Earlier on a suit filed by the temple the S.D.O. had ordered appointing receiver over the disputed land and later on the R.A.A. has also dismissed the appeal and therefore this revision has come up before the Board of Revenue. (4). Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. (5). The counsel for the petitioner has argued that they are khatedars of the disputed land for the last 128 years and the lower courts have erred in their decision. The opposite party has supported lower courts order. (6). Perused the record. The land appears to be of the temple as is clear from record of Svt. 1984. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the land. This is clear position of law that khatedari rights cannot accrue over a temple land. And therefore in my view the appointment of receiver by S.D.O. Dausa was perfect in order. The suit is pending before the trial court and who is the final owner will be decided in the main suit. Till the main suit is decided, it is proper that the possession of the temple lands remains with the receiver and therefore, although the petitioners may have been in possession of the land in many many years but the position of law is that khatedari rights do not accrue over the temple lands, even though the possession may be of many-many years. Therefore, under the circumstances the position taken by the lower courts was just and proper. Therefore, under the circumstances the position taken by the lower courts was just and proper. In case of concurrent findings jurisdiction of this court is also limited and, therefore, I am rejecting this revision (six review?) and the disputed land will be continued to be in possession of the receiver, till the main suit is decided by the trial Court. Pronounced in the open Court.