Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2153 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal v. Board of Revenue

2013-12-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing order Annexure-9 dated 4.2.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby reference made under Section 332 (sic 232) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 by the Addl. Collector, Chittorgarh was accepted, so also, order Annexure-8 dated 21.3.1995 whereby reference was made by the Addl. Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittorgarh under Section 332 (sic 232) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 and under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 2. As per facts of the case, the land in question was recorded in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji through its pujari Girdhar Das S/o Gulab Das Bairagi but the said land was sold by former Jagirdar Jorawar Singh to the petitioners and Mutation Nos. 105, 109, 165, 319 and 320 were opened in their names. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that land in question was in personal cultivation of one jagirdar Jorawar Singh but the ex-jagirdar gave this land to the temple Shree Charbhuja Ji and, in the revenue record, the land in question was recorded in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji; but, it is very strange that after considerable period even though the land in question was recorded in the name of Idol Shree Charbhuja ji, the ex-jagirdar sold the said property to the petitioners and for the purpose of mutation application was filed by the petitioners before the Tehsildar Bari Sadari and the Tehsildar accepted the application for the purpose of mutation in the name of petitioners but sent the order dated 4.12.1968 to the District Collector for confirmation. 3. The Tehsildar, Bari Sadari filed an application before the District Collector, Chittorgarh for making reference under Section 332 (sic 232) of the Act of 1955 on the ground that the sale made by the ex-jagirdar is totally illegal f or the simple reason that he was not having any right to sell the land in question because the land was entered in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji. The Addl. .Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittorgarh made reference vide order dated 21.3.1995 to the Board of Revenue and vide judgment dated 4.2.1998 Board of Revenue accepted the reference made by the Addl. The Addl. .Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittorgarh made reference vide order dated 21.3.1995 to the Board of Revenue and vide judgment dated 4.2.1998 Board of Revenue accepted the reference made by the Addl. Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittorgarh and order was made that mutation made in favour of the petitioners is set aside and the land in question may be recorded again in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji as it is and, further issued direction to the Tehsildar that he will see that necessary arrangement for sevapuja is made out of the proceeds of the crop of the holding attached to the temple. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that they purchased the land in question from the ex-jagirdar and admittedly the land was not transferred but it was only given for the purpose of sevapuja of the temple but no rights were transferred, therefore, the ex-jagirdar was having all the rights to sell the property for the simple reason that the pujari filed his resignation to maintain the temple, therefore, the reference made by the Addl. District Collector under Section 332 (sic 232) of the Act was bad in law and subsequently the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that once the land was given to the temple by the ex-jagirdar and in the revenue record the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji was entered in the mutation proceedings, then, there was no occasion to sell the land in question by the ex-jagirdar to the petitioner. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Board of Revenue in setting aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioners and restore the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji in the revenue record. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of reference made by the Addl. Collector, Chittorgarh dated 21.3.1995, so also, the order passed by the Board of Revenue. In the opinion of this Court, there is no dispute with regard to entry in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji in the revenue record for the land question. 7. Collector, Chittorgarh dated 21.3.1995, so also, the order passed by the Board of Revenue. In the opinion of this Court, there is no dispute with regard to entry in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji in the revenue record for the land question. 7. Admittedly, the ex-jagirdar sold the property-on the ground that the pujari of the temple Girdhari Das gave resignation to work as pujari; but, this ground cannot be treated as valid ground to again acquire right to sell the property by the former jagirdar Jorawar Singh. Therefore, if the sale of the property entered in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji by the ex-jagirdar is not valid, then, it should be treated as illegal and, on that basis, there is no question of opening mutation in the name of the petitioners. 8. The finding given by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer clearly speaks that the land in question was entered in the revenue record in the name of idol Shree Charbhuja ji and illegally the said entry was deleted and, again, the name of ex-jagirdar Jorawar Singh was entered in the revenue record even though the fact that there was no substantial evidence on record to support the contention of ex-jagirdar Jorawar Singh that the temple in question was his personal temple and the land in question was given for performance of sevapuja only. There is however no material on record to disbelieve the fact that the entries in the annual register show that the land in question was recorded in the name of idol Shree Charbhujaji and management was through its pujari. Therefore, no error has been committed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while setting aside the mutation made in favour of Late Jorawar Singh from whom the petitioners purchased the land in question. In view of above, there is no force in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******