BABU SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dt. 06.07.1994 passed by the Additional Collector whereby a reference was made to the Board of Revenue with regard to mutation which was opened in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 28.04.1995 whereby the reference was allowed and the mutation made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Mandir Shri Madangopalji Maharaj Virajman Moja Bahrawali.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the land situated in village Bahrawali, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur bearing Khasra Nos. 142, 156, 163, 140, 159, 160, 161, 246, 245, 157, 158, 162 and 163 were shown as a "muafi land" of Pandit Gordhan Singh as far back as Samvat Year 1978 -79. However, in the year 1945, the said land was shown in the revenue record, in the name of Mandir Gopalji Maharaj and in the name of petitioner's father, Prabhu, as "Ghair Morusidar Pattedar" (sub -tenant). On 20.06.1957, Prabhu applied to the SDO for confirmation of khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Vide order dt. 24.05.1958, the SDO allowed the application and conferred khatedari rights. It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that both the State Government and the temple were parties before the SDO, they did not challenge the order dt. 24.05.1958. Hence, the said order achieved finality. In pursuance of the order dt. 24.05.1958, a mutation, Mutation No. 138 was attested in the name of Prabhu and he was recorded as a khatedar of the said land. After the delay of almost thirty -five years, one Charan Lal Sharma filed an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, respondent No. 2. The petitioners filed the reply. Vide order dt. 06.07.1994, the Additional Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide order dt. 28.04.1994 accepted the reference and passed the order as indicated above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Zakawat Ali, the learned Dy. GA for the State, has contended that the land belonging to a deity actually belongs to a minor. The said land needs to be protected from being sold by or being converted in favour of third party. As far back as 1945, the said land was entered into in the name of Mandir Shri Gopalji Maharaj. Therefore, a reference could be made with regard to the illegal declaration of the petitioner's father as khatedar of the said land. Hence, he has supported the impugned orders.