Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 324 (RAJ)

LRs. of Khayali v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-30

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.2809/2010, whereby the said writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 28.05.1993 and 22.05.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar (Land Records), Taranagar, Churu had moved an application before the District Collector, Churu to the effect that land of Khasra Nos. 884, 1155, 1165, 889, 1193, 1293, 1344 of village Sahava, Tehsil Taranagar, was recorded in the name of Mandir Shri Narsingh Dasji in Samvat Year 2011, however, in Samvat Year 2020, the land was wrongly recorded in the name of Ganesha and others (Pujaris) and later, they had alienated the said land to others therefore, names of Pujaris as Khatedars of the land be removed and the land in question be recorded in the name of Mandir. 3. The matter thereafter placed before the Board of Revenue in reference proceedings. The said reference was ultimately accepted by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 22.05.2000, wherein the Board of Revenue has observed that the counsel for the Pujaris has admitted that the land was in the Khatedari of Mandir Narsingh Dasji and it has wrongly been entered in the name of the respondents, and if the land is recorded in the name of the Mandir, respondents have no objections. However, while passing the order dated 22.05.2000, the Board of Revenue has taken into consideration the relevant revenue record and held that the land in question was recorded in the name of Mandir prior to settlement proceedings but during the said proceeding, the land was illegally recorded in the name of Pujaris because the Land Settlement Department has no jurisdiction to confer Khatedari rights to any person. On the basis of above reasoning, the Board of Revenue had ordered that the land of the above referred Khasras be recorded in the name of Mandir Murthi Narsingh Dasji after deleting the name of the Pujaris. 4. The appellants had preferred a review application before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2010. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred SBCWP No.2809/2010, which too came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 5. 4. The appellants had preferred a review application before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2010. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred SBCWP No.2809/2010, which too came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Board of Revenue has wrongly accepted the reference on the basis of the consent of the parties, though no such consent was given by the counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that being Pujaris of the Mandir, Khyali and others are entitled to be recorded as Khatedar and there was no illegality in the action in recording them as Khatedar in the revenue record but the Board of Revenue has illegally ordered for deleting the names of Pujaris as Khatedar from the revenue record. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that on the question regarding conferment of Khatedari rights to Pujaris in the land belonging to Mandir, a reference is pending consideration before the Larger Bench of this Court and, therefore, the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the matter till the final decision of the Larger Bench of this Court on the point in issue. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has argued that as the land was wrongly recorded in the names of Pujaris, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly ordered for deletion of the names of the Pujaris, while directing to record the land in question in the name of Mandir. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has also argued that before the Board of Revenue, the counsel for the appellants and other Pujaris made a specific statement that the land has wrongly been recorded in the name of Pujaris and if the same is now recorded in the name of Mandir, the Pujaris have no objections. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has also argued that in the absence of the affidavit of the Advocate concerned, the learned Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in rejecting the review application, and the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the said orders. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has also argued that in the absence of the affidavit of the Advocate concerned, the learned Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in rejecting the review application, and the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the said orders. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellants have not disputed that earlier the land in question was entered in the name of the temple and erroneously, their names were entered in the revenue record as Khatedar. After observing this, the learned Single Judge has held that it is a case of the rectification of mistake committed by the revenue authorities and, therefore, on facts, no interference is required. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellants had not submitted any affidavit of the lawyer to substantiate their claim that their Advocate had not given any statement before the Board of Revenue that the land was erroneously recorded in the name of the Pujaris. The learned Single Judge has further observed that even the review application before the Board of Revenue was not filed by the same Advocate, who was engaged by the appellants. 9. After careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge, we do not find any force in the same because the Board of Revenue, while accepting the reference, has given specific finding that the Land Settlement Department has no jurisdiction to confer khatedari rights to any person because the duty of the said department is only to rewrite the existing entries in the revenue record. The Board of Revenue, though, has taken into consideration the submission/concession of the counsel for the Pujaris, but not accepted the reference solely on the basis of the same. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to advance any argument to the effect that the Land Settlement Department has jurisdiction to confer khatedari rights to any person. 10. Admittedly, if the Khatedari rights were granted to the Pujaris by authority, which had no jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has committed any illegality in accepting the reference. 11. 10. Admittedly, if the Khatedari rights were granted to the Pujaris by authority, which had no jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue has committed any illegality in accepting the reference. 11. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge have not given any finding on the point of conferment of khatedari rights to any Pujari of a temple in respect of land belonging to temple. The Board of Revenue has accepted the reference only on count that the authority who had conferred khatedari rights to the Pujaris has no jurisdiction to do so. 12. In the above circumstances, the factum of pendency of a reference before the Larger Bench of this Court on other issue has no bearing on this litigation. 13. The another argument of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that their advocate had not given any consent before the Board of Revenue is not of much relevance because the Board of Revenue had not accepted the reference on the basis of the consent of the advocate. As observed earlier, while accepting the reference, the Board of Revenue has given a categorical finding to the effect that the Land Settlement Department has no jurisdiction to confer Khatedari rights to any person and therefore, the names of the appellants have illegally been entered in the revenue record. 14. In view of the above discussions, we find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******