IDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 (Annx.4), by which the reference Under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms Act, 1956 has been accepted against settlement entries made in Samvat Year 2020 (corresponding to 1963).

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute, measuring 25 Bighas 15 Biswas of Khasra Nos.248 and 261 situate in the Revenue Estate of village Jayal (district Nagaur), belonged to deity Sri Raghunathji, whose Pujari was Shri Girdhari Das. The land used to be cultivated by one Hanuta Ram on behalf of the deity. During the settlement proceedings in the Samvat Year 2020. Hanuta Ram was shown, in column No. 5. as Khatedar - tenant instead of deity Sri Raghunathji through its Pujari Girdhari Das. When such entries came to the knowledge of the Additional District Collector, he sent the matter to the Settlement Commissioner, who, subsequently vide order dated 7.3.1998, referred the matter to the Director, Land Records, for necessary action and thereupon, vide order dated 1.7.1998, the reference was made to the Board of Revenue. Notice was issued to the present petitioner Idan S/o Shri Hanuta Ram to show cause as why the reference be not accepted. He contested the reference asserting that prior to the settlement proceedings, i.e. Samvat Year 2020 (1963), his father had been recorded as sub -tenant and upon coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Hanuta Ram, being the cultivator of the land, was recorded its Khatedar - tenant. On the contrary, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that the land in dispute belonged to the deity Sri Raghunathji and as he had never paid the rent and had never been recorded as tenant prior to the commencement of the Act, it was not permissible for any Settlement Authority to record Hanuta Ram as Khatedar -tenant. The learned Board of Revenue considered the rival contentions and recorded the finding of facts that at the time of settlement proceedings in 1963, the land belonged to deity Sri Raghunathji and petitioner's father Hanuta Ram had never been recorded as the tenant of the aforesaid land; 'it was incumbent upon the Settlement Officer to repeat the entries which were prevalent at the time of settlement proceedings' and when in 1963, at the time of settlement, the deity had been recorded as the owner of the land in absence of resumption of Jagir, petitioner's father could not have been shown as a tenant of the land on behalf of the deity and, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue accepted the reference. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) ON the contrary, this Court, in Temple Thakurji v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and a Division Bench of this Court in MangiLal v. State of Rajasthan 1997(3) RLW 2017, placed reliance upon a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Bishwanath and Anr. v. Thakur Radhavallabhji and Ors. : [1967]2SCR618 and held that deity is a perpetual minor and as per the provisions of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, its interest is to be protected by the State. Revenue Authorities and the Courts. The question of alienation of its property is not permissible save as provided under the law.