MAHANT RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above writ petitions are disposed of by one single order as the facts in both the cases are connected with each -other and an order was also passed to connect both the above writ petitions for hearing purposes.

(2.) I shall first deal with the facts of writ petition No. 24 of 1982. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's ancestors were granted three jagirs separately from time to time:

(3.) THE Government wanted to dispossess the petitioner of the property known as Chhota Ramdwara and as such the petitioner filed D.B. Civil writ petition No. 958/66, Mahant Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan and the same was decided along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1366/66, Smt. Phool Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. vide order, dated 10 -7 -1967 (Annexure 5) and these writ petitions were allowed and the State Government and its other functionaries were forbidden from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed properties till the respondents took fresh steps according to law. After the above order of the High Court the Collector, Jaipur issued an order on 15 -9 -1967 (Annexure 6) and authorised Shri Basanti Lal, Tehsildar Jaipur to take over charge of the Jagir from the petitioner. A copy of the order was also endorsed to the petitioner mentioning him as Jagirdar, Kishanpole and Bhawani Shankerpura i.e. in respect of 'Udak' Jagirs which were resumed with effect from 1 -11 -1958 not being religious Jagirs. The petitioner then filed a list of his private properties to the Tehsildar, Jaipur and through him to the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner had mentioned that Chhota Ramdwara in Kishanpole (Sawai Jaipur) was his private property within the meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act with detailed reasons and that he was entitled to continue to hold the same as his private property. So far as the third Jagir at Aakodiya was concerned, the same was a religious Jagir and as such there was no dispute about the delivery of possession of the Jagir at Aakodiya and as such no list of private property under Section 23 of the Act was required to be filed so far as the Jagir at Aakodiya was concerned. The Tehsildar forwarded the list to the Jagir Commissioner. The Jagir Commissioner then in exercise of his powers under Rule 23(2) of the Rules, forwarded the list for enquiry to the Collector, Jagir on 6 -10 -1967. The Collector Jagir vide order, dated 10 -7 -1962 (Annexure 8) submitted his report. According to the petitioner both the Tehsildar in his report, dated 1 -1 -1969 as well as the Collector in his report, dated 10 -7 -1972 recorded the findings that the property situated in Chhota Ramdwara was the private property of the petitioner. The Jagir Commissioner on 29 -1 -1977 gave his judgment (Annx. 9). According to the petitioner the Jagir Commissioner specifically mentioned about the nature of the property in question as follows: The site was also inspected on the request of the parties on 15 -1 -1977. It was noted during inspection that there is Mahadeoji's temple and there is adjoining well. There is also Ramdwara having a Chhatri and a Baradari under the Chhatri on ground floor in the front side there was one chowki. On the first floor of this Ramdwara building there is one Silanyas having inscription. In the Verandah there were 'Charaus' of the Gurus and on other side in a small room photos of Gurus are placed. On the front side of this Ramdwara some construction is found to have been done which has blocked the view of the Chhatri. The Parikrama passage is also blocked at present. The entire Astata is enclosed by a compound wall having 'Suras'. On the back side there were houses in which tenants are living. Except these buildings and construction, the rest of the area is open. The first floor of Ramdwara building is occupied by Mahant Ram Swaroop except that on the back side the objector Ram Bharosey is residing and he stated during inspection that he is a tenant. Trees were also found in the open enclosure and within the compound wall; The Mahant maintained that the building namely, Ramdwara building, houses on the back side fall in the category of property under Sub -clause (iii) of Section 23(b), further trees fall under Sub -clause (iv) of Section 23 (b). Mahadeoji's temple and well fall under Sub -clause (iii) and as such they rightly belong to him and should be declared as his personal property under Section 23 which permits these items to be declared as such; No doubt these items find a mention in Section 23 and not with standing provisions of Section 22, these can be declared as personal property and excluded from the perview of resumption. However, the Jagir Commissioner, after having so held proceeded to declare as under: But I am unable to accept the logic of the plea advanced by the petitioner. Merely on the ground that these categories and specifications of items of property are provided for under Section 23, they cannot be declared as personal property. The status of Mahant has been found to be that of only Pujari and not that of a personal grantee of this 'Punya' or 'Udak grant'. Similarly his possession of Ramdwara building has been noted as that of a 'Nihang Pujari'. This grant is essentially and basically a grant for the temple of 'Mahadeoji' and 'Ramdwara' and not for the Chela of the Mahant. This grant being thus as Mahadeoji's temple and Ramdwara, the item of property comprised in this estate are of these two religious institutions and as such the claim of Mahant Ram Swaroop for declaring them as his personal property under Section 23 of the Act, 1952 is not substantiated and is accordingly disallowed.