This writ petition challenged revenue orders cancelling mutation entries in favor of the petitioner to restore land to a deity. The Court held that temple land cannot be claimed by private parties or devotees and dismissed the petition.
The present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 826/2002
Joga Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The Board Of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Shailendra Gwala |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
LK Purohit,GC |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
01/11/2023
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.11.1987 (2.12.1987) (Annexure-7), 24.6.1993 (Annexure-8), 26.11.1998 (Annexure-9) and 4.12.2001 (Annexure-11) passed by the S.D.O. Bali, Revenue Appellate Authority (Second), Jodhpur and Board of Revenue respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Costs throughout may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
(2 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
3.1. Thereafter, Deity Doli Banam Charbhuja Ji Temple through its Pujari filed an application against the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Assistant Land Revenue Officer, Jodhpur vide order dated 18.01.1987; aggrieved whereby, the Deity filed an appeal before the learned Additional Land Revenue Officer, Jodhpur, which was allowed vide order dated 08.07.1987, and while quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order dated 18.01.1987, the matter was remanded back to the learned Assistant Land Revenue Officer, to decide the matter afresh after given opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, on the following issues :
(3 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
Thereafter, as per the settlement, the Deity was recorded as owner of the land in question.
3.2. Subsequently, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bali initiated the proceeding and passed the impugned order dated 30.11.1987, whereby the Tehsildar, Desuri was directed to cancel the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent(s), and a fresh entry in relation to the land in question was ordered to be made in the name of the Deity. Against the said impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’ ) before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) (Second), Jodhpur, which was partly allowed vide the impugned order dated 24.06.1993.
3.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.06.1993, the petitioner preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 26.11.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1956 before the learned BoR, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2001. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the aforequoted reliefs.
(4 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
orders passed by the learned revenue courts below are not justified in law.
4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was declared as khatedar by the judgment & decree dated 22.03.1973 passed by the Settlement Officer-cum-SDO, which had already attained finality. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the khatedari of the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner’s father prior to the promulgation of the Tenancy Laws, and thus, at that time, there was no question of making any revenue entry in that regard. It was also submitted that the Deity was not recorded as a Khatedar and the land in question was not a Khudkast land.
5.1. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the Khautoni Bandobast pertaining to Samwat Year 2009 to 2028 makes it clear that the land in question was recorded in the name of the Deity as Bhokta and the petitioner’s father and others were
(5 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
mentioned as Upbhokta, and therefore, it is clear that the land in question was belonging to the Deity.
5.2. It was also submitted that the land in questioned belonged to the Deity since before the date of promulgation and coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, the impugned orders are justified in law.
(6 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2001.
Tara & Ors. (Supra) :
“(i) Whether the land held in Jagir, by Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, such idol being treated as a perpetual minor, will still be regarded as land held in the personal cultivation of the deity or will such land be regarded as held in the tenancy by the person cultivating such land as tenant of a deity?
Answer:- The question no.(i) is decided in favour of the State and against the Shebait/Pujari claiming the land to be saved by the Jagirs Act of 1952. The land held in Jagir by Hindu idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity personally or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, shall vest in the State, after the Jagirs Act of 1952. The Hindu idol (deity), even if it is treated to be a perpetual minor, could not continue to hold such land. Such land cannot be treated to be in its personal cultivation. A tenant of such land cultivating the land acquired the rights of khatedar of the State. Such land under the tenancy of a person other than Shebait/Purjari of Hindu Idol (deity) became khatedari land of such tenant. The name of Hindu Idol (deity) from such land had to be expunged from the revenue records with Shebait/Pujuri having no right to claim the land as Khatedar. Consequently, they had no right to transfer such lands, and all such transfers have to be treated as null and void, in contravention of the Jagirs Act 1952, and the land under such transfers to be resumed by the State.
(7 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
Question no.(iii) Whether such a Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) can be alienated by them? If so, what is the effect?
Answer:- The Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol(deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) by the Jagirs Act of 1952 will not give them any right nor they could alienate the land. The alienation made by them of such land which was resumed/acquired by the State Government and for which claims were made and settled before the Jagir Commissioner, would be null and void and will have no effect”.
Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das (Supra) :
“13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and while keeping into consideration the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Tara and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) RLW2721 (Raj.), this Court is of the opinion that once the land has been consistently recorded as a temple/deity/doli land and has been marked as a Khudkasht for the same and there is no independent Khatedar having its existence in the land record from the beginning then any right cannot aggrieve any person merely because in the Khudkasht or deity he was acting as a sub-tenant. The consistency in the land record reflects the land in question belonging to the doli/temple/deity the perpetual minor and the category being Khudkasht.
14. In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.”
9. This Court further observes that the land in question was recorded as a khudkasht land in the name of the Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj at the time of settlement and the Pujari/ Shebait cannot acquire and get such land(s) registered in his name. In the present case, once the land(s) was recorded as a Temple land(s) and marked as khudkasht, neither the private respondents have any right on such land, nor any other person can claim such right, and if it is so done even by way of entry in the revenue records or otherwise, the same is liable to be held contrary to the settled proposition of law.
(8 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
10. This Court also observes that the land in question, being a khudkasht land(s), belonging to Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj, which is a perpetual minor, the claim of the private respondents that they were the khatedars of the land for last 54 years, is of no consequence, because Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj is a perpetual minor, and thus, the subject falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
10.1. In the case of Mangi Lal & Ors (Supra) , it was held that “Section 46 of the Act, 1955 provides for exemption of obtaining khatedari rights in exceptional cases. It includes the case of a minor and a person incapable of cultivating his holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity. An idol/deity can fall to both the classes i.e. a minor as well as a physically disabled or infirm person and the manager or the State is under an obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or disabled person. No person can acquire Khatedari rights in the land belonging to a minor. The object is laudable and based on public policy and, therefore, the deity cannot be deprived of his property by such a transaction, which has fraudulently been entered upon by the Pujari himself. It is the obligation/function of the State to look after the welfare of the deity being a person, may be juristic, may be a person on account of fiction of law but incapable to protect its interest being a perpetual minor and disabled physically”.
Relevant portion of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also
reproduced as hereunder:
11. This Court further observes that the petitioner is the Devotee/Worshipper of the Temple and he has a right to take any action only in the interests of the Temple, including protection of the Temple land(s), as the same is a settled position of law, as per the judgment rendered by a
(9 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR (Supra).
12. This Court also observes that the private respondents’ names were entered in the revenue records in relation to the khudkasht land in question; previously, the said land was registered in the name of Temple (Doli) under the khudkhasht category, and therefore, father of the private respondents, namely, Pema Ram, being the Pujari of Temple and thereafter, the private respondents as his legal heirs, cannot claim any right over such land. Thus, in the present case, the claim of the private respondents does not hold good, even as per the precedent law laid down in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan Kalyan Samiti & Ors. (Supra).”
Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 185 of 2001 & Other Connected
Matters, decided on 15.07.2015) , and the same was followed by this Court, in the afore-quoted judgment.
(10 of 10)
[2023:RJ-JD:38588]
[CW-826/2002]
speaking orders impugned herein passed by the learned revenue courts below, so as to warrant any interference therein.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
24-SKant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders recorded in revenue records belonging to a perpetual minor deity are liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether a devotee/worshipper has the right to claim khatedari rights over land recorded as khudkasht in the name of a deity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj Vs Board of Revenue & OrsReferred¶52
Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj Vs Board of Revenue & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3589/2023)
Tara & Ors.Referred¶54
Tara & Ors. (Supra)
Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Referred¶62
Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10967/2022)
Mangi Lal & OrsReferred¶70
Mangi Lal & Ors (Supra)
M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LRReferred¶79
M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR (Supra)
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan Kalyan Samiti & Ors.Referred¶80
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan Kalyan Samiti & Ors. (Supra)
Tara & Ors. Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶83
Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 185 of 2001)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Joga Ram
The Board Of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer
Dr.Pushtendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
