Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 353 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Gawari Devi

2002-02-11

ANIL DEV SINGH, RAJESH BALIA

body2002
Honble SINGH, CJ.–These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2001 passed in batch of writ petitions being SBCW Petitions Nos.677/2001, 678/2001, 679/2001, 680/2001, 681/2001, 682/2001, 683/2001, 684/2001, 685/2001, 686/2001, 687/2001, 688/2001, 689/2001 and 690/2001. (2). The land in question, undoubtedly, belongs to Mandir Alamji, Dhorimana. The land is an agricultural land and was transferred by the Pujari of the Mandir to be transferees. The transferees claim that they had constructed houses on the transferred land. It appears that the State book proceedings under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the transferees for raising constructions over the land belonging to the deity. The transferees filed a joint representation to the concerned authorities. It seems that the representations did not have the desired effect. According to para 10 of the writ petition, the appellant, without deciding the representation, demolished the construction raised by the transferees. Aggrieved by the action taken by the appellants, the transferees filed the aforesaid writ petitions. (3). The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the transferees purchased the land belonging to the deity and the Pujari had no authority to transfer the same. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it was a settled legal proposition that the land of the deity cannot be transferred under any circumstances, as it is always to be considered as a minor. The learned Single Judge also observed that the land which is once traced to be belonging to the deity must be restored to the deity by the revenue authority and if there was any alienation by the Pujari or anybody else it has to be treated as void-ab initio. Having held that, the learned Single Judge considered the question of the transferees having constructed their houses over the land. The learned Single Judge on balancing the equities of the matter was. of the view that it was desirable that instead of dispossessing the transferees and demolishing their houses, their representation for giving equal area of land to the deity may be considered. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the request to the appellants to consider the representation of the transferees strictly in accordance with Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months. (4). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the request to the appellants to consider the representation of the transferees strictly in accordance with Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months. (4). The appellant have filed the instant appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in law in giving a direction to them to consider the representation of the transferees. When in law the land of the deity could not be transferred by the Pujari and was bound to be restored back to it. (5). In order to correctly appreciate the order of the learned Single Judge, we may notice that the transferees Bakhta Ram and Chima Ram, who were parties to the joint representation, were willing to surrender 8 bighas of their own land, so that the same could be transferred to the deity and the occupation of the transferees of the land in question could be saved since they had constructed houses thereon. It appears that it was in this context that the learned Single Judge requested the appellant to consider the representations of the respondents. We do not find the approach of the learned Single Judge to be erroneous. (6). In equity, we endorse the view of the learned Single Judge and direct that the representation of the respondents ought to be considered in view of the fact that the respondents have offered 8 bighas of land in lieu - of the land which was transferred by the Pujari to them. We may point out that the question of transfer ability of land belonging to deity is till sub-judice before a Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, at present the position in law regarding the question as to whether or not the land of a deity can be transferred by a Pujari seems to be in a stated of flux. (7). Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant ought to consider the representation of the respondent. We order accordingly. With the aforesaid observation and direction, we dispose of the appeals.