STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and orders of the learned Board of Revenue dated 27.12.1997 (Annx. 4) and 2.7.1998 (Annx. 6) by which the reference made by the Authority Under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has been rejected and its review application has also been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land encompass in Khasra No. 702 measuring 56.9 Bighas, Khasra No. 708 measuring 83 Bighas and Khasra No. 705 measuring 40.14 Bighas situate in revenue estate Shiy Distt. Banner was in the name of Doli (Math Shri Garibnath Ji Maharaj), Respondent No. 1 was recorded as a cultivator of the said and his name also had been mentioned in the earlier revenue record. The land in Khasra Nos. 702 and 705 came to be recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 antl the land in Khasra No. 708 in the name of respondent Nq.2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the transferees of the land from respondent No. 1 by way of gift deed etc. The matter was referred to the learned Board of Revenue earlier making reference No. 15/88. However the matter was remanded vide order dated 2.6.1989 to the Additional Collector. Banner to examine as to whether the cultivator was having any heritable and transferable right in the land or not. The matter was re -examined and it was held that the land had been recorded in the name of respondents but without any authority of law and those persons who are not having any heritable or transferable are not having any heritable or transferable rights at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1955) in force, vide order dated 27.4.1992 (Annx. 2). The matter was again referred to the learned Board of Revenue and the reference was decided vide order dated 10.5.1995 exparte as the respondents did not enter appearance and it was held that the land belonged to the deity and nobody could have any transferable rights in the said land. The mutations etc. were directed to be set aside. The matter was reopened on the application of the respondents and the reference was rejected vide judgment and order dated 26.12.1997 (Annx. 4). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the present petitioner filed a review application which has also been rejected vide judgment and order dated 2.7.1998 (Annx. 6); hence this petition.

(3.) IN Temple Thakurji v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and a Division Bench of this Court in Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (3) RLW 2017, this Court 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 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.