BHAGAT DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kotah, dated 18. 7. 53, accepting the recommendation of the Collector, Kotah, in a case relating to mutation of muafi.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record. Put briefly the facts of the case are that Sunderdass, Mahant of village Sakatpur, who belonged to the naga sect of sadhus, had four grants in his name. The muafi grants situated in villages Nandu and Ramnagar were attached to the temple of Shri Laxmanji and the Collector in accordance with the provisions contained in sec. 17 (1) Circular No. 1 of the former Kotah State mutated these grants in the name of Shri Bhagwan Dass, a spiritual brother or guru bhai of the deceased muafidar. As regards the other two grants in villages Rangbadi and Kodsuan which were punyarth, the Collector was of the opinion that as no prior sanction had been, obtained by the deceased for the nomination of a chela under sec. 17 (3) of Circular No. 1, both these grants were liable to resumption. The learned Divisional Commissioner agreed with this view and ordered resumption of the grant. Hence this appeal. 3 In the first place it is obvious that the claimant does not seek mutation of the grants on the basis of nomination as a chela by the deceased mahant, as he claimed himself to be a guru bhai of the deceased. It is, therefore, difficult to say as to who the question previous sanction for nomination of chela could be held relevant in the case. Nevertheless, as the lower courts have expressed an opinion on this point which is clearly erroneous, we would examine this question. Sec. 17 of Circular No. 1 lays down the extent of powers to be exercised by the revenue officers in disposing of mutation cases with regard to State grants. Sub-sec. (1) deals with grant of fresh muafis. The mutation of existing muafis is also dealt with in this sub-section but a separate sub-clause has been added to each case. In subclause (1) muafis of temples, mosques, takiya etc. have been dealt with. In subclause (2) jagir bakhshau mundkati, pet roti and rao rathori have been dealt with. In sub-clause (3) punyarth jagir - a category to which the grants in dispute belong has been dealt-with. The scheme envisaged in this sub-section is that the Nazims of the then setup were competent to sanction mutation irrespective of the area of the grant in favour of real sons of the deceased. If the claimant was the widow of the deceased claiming mutation for her life time or any other claimant within two degrees, then the Assistant Revenue Commissioner could sanction mutation in respect of 100 bighas and Revenue Commissioner up to 200 bighas. For areas above 200 bighas and in all cases where the claimant was an adopted son irrespective of the area of the grant the mutation was to be sanctioned by the Mahakma Khas. The disciples of Nihang Sadhus were to be treated as adopted sons. Similarly sisters, daughters and daughter's sons were to receive sanction of mutation from Mahakma Khas. Thus in all these provisions there is no mention that a person desirous of taking a son in adoption or a Nihang Sadhu wishing to nominate a Chela should, prior to the adoption or nomination, seek sanction of the Mahakma Khas and that in the absence of such sanction, the adoption or nomination even if it had taken (place in fact would become void. The provisions referred to above simply lay down the extent of powers to be exercised by the revenue officers while sanctioning mutation and in case where adopted sons or Chelas were involved mutation was to be sanctioned by the Mahakma Khas. This will of course now mean the Board of Revenue as the Government of Rajasthan has vide Notification No. F. 16 (19) Rev. 1/52 dated 19th March, 1953 delegated its authority to the Board vide item No, 11 of the Notification. The legal position as understood by the learned Commissioner and the Collector is clearly untenable and as observed above it is not at all necessary to decide this case with reference to this question for the obvious reason that the claimant here is not a disciple but a Guru bhai of the deceased. WE would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and remand the case back to the Collector with the direction that it be examined afresh in the light of the observation made above and a report be submitted to the Board for final sanction. .