Devasthan Inam lands are protected under Section 8(3) of the Exemptions from Land Revenue Act, 1863, prohibiting their transfer or sale, regardless of changes in revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present Writ Petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking to impugn the judgment and order dated 7th March 2013, passed by respondent No.1 in Application No. DEV-1012/P.K.130/L4, whereby respondent No.1 has withdrawn the exemption earlier granted from payment of land revenue in respect of the land in question, and has withheld the privilege of exemption from payment of land revenue as contemplated under Clause 66 of the Joglekar Law Manual.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present Writ Petition, briefly stated, are as under:

The land bearing Revision Survey No.1052/2, situated at Village Vita, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli, admeasuring 14 Acres and 28 Gunthas (hereinafter referred to as "the said land") belonged to a religious institution, namely, Mhaswad Sidha Devasthan. The said land was classified as Devasthan Inam Class III land in the Land Alienation Register prepared by the Inam Commission, and the corresponding Sanad number of such Inam grant is recorded as 8673. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the Inam Patrak obtained from the Pune Archives Office, which describes the said land as Devasthan Inam land. Furthermore, the Dumala Land Register (Gaon Namuna No.3), maintained in the village Chawdi by the Talathi under the supervision of the Tahsildar, reflects that the said land is recorded as Devasthan Inam land. The said register further evidences the existence of the Deity (Devasthan Institution), the continuance of religious rites and rituals associated therewith, and the utilization of profits and income generated from the land for the benefit of the Deity.

3. According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-title, one Ganapati Vithu Gurav, was a priest (Gurav) who was performing the religious rituals and managing the affairs of the said temple. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Revision Survey No.1052 was part and parcel of the Inam land pertaining to the said Deity and temple. In or about the year 1930, the name of Dadu Rama Gurav came to be recorded in the revenue records in respect of the said land, and subsequently, the name of Govind Dadu Gurav was recorded. The Land Alienation Register, the Dumala Register, Mutation Entry No.4669, and the Record of Rights pertaining to the said land, as well as the Inam Patrak, consistently describe the said land as Class III Devasthan Inam land.

4. On or about 11th September 2012, respondent No.3 preferred an application before respondent No.1, inter alia, contending that the entry in the record of rights, describing the said land as Class III Devasthan Inam land, was erroneous, and consequently sought deletion of the said description from the revenue records. The petitioners submit that the said application filed by respondent No.3 contained no averment whatsoever to the effect that the Deity of Mhaswadsiddh (Devasthan) is not in existence, or that the religious rites and rituals associated with the Deity are not being performed, or that the profits and income derived from the said land are not being utilized for the benefit of the Deity.

5. On 31st October 2012, respondent No.2, through the Sub- Divisional Officer, Khanapur, Taluka Vita, District Sangli, submitted a report, inter alia, pointing out that the said land has been shown as Devasthan Inam land since the year 1930, and that the entries in the Mutation Register, particularly Mutation Entry Nos.4669 and 5694, as well as the 7/12 extracts from 1953-1954 onwards, and the Inam Patrak, support and corroborate the said position. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, recommended rejection of the application filed by respondent No.3.

6. Respondent No.1, after granting opportunity of hearing to both sides, proceeded to allow the application filed by respondent No.3 and passed an order canceling the exemption earlier