A tenant who is recorded in the revenue record as a khatedar or under any caption implying heritable and full transferable rights in the tenancy, becomes a khatedar tenant by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, even if the land belongs to a deity but is cultivated by the tenant.

1. :- A suit was filed by the deity Murti Radha Damodarji through Karan, Chandrabhan, Bhagwan, Bihari and Shyam stating that the land in question belonged to deity and was let out to the petitioner defendant in Samvat year 2010 for a period of five years. It was the case of the plaintiff that even though the defendant had surrendered the possession in Samvat 2014, but again unlawfully took possession in Samvat 2017 and got himself recorded as khatedar. Th e case of the petitioner defendant was that he was in continuous possession from much earlier to Samvat 2010 i.e. since Samvat 2005 and was not a trespasser and, therefore, could not be ejected. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.4.1978, but on appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.1.1980. The Assistant Collector had given the finding that the petitioner had been mentioned as khatedar in the khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2016 to 2030, but the entries were not correct for the reason that under section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the sub-tenant of the deity did not acquire any khatedari rights. The Revenue Appellate Authority had reversed the judgment of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the defendant petitioner was in possession in Samvat 2006 and the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the petitioner-defendant had ever taken a force able possession in Samvat 2014. The Board of Revenue in the impugned order set aside the order and judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority vide Annexure-11. The reason given by the Board of Revenue is that it will not make any difference at all if the possession of the petitioner is established from Samvat 2006 or 2010 as in either situation the defendant petitioners are to be treated as khatedars only. On the ground that the plaintiff being a perpetual minor, the defendant sub-tenant does not acquire any khatedari rights, the Board of Revenue relying on (1) 1984 RRD 1 and (2) 1987 RRD 261 had held that the khatedari rights could not accrue to a sub-tenant of a deity. However, the Board of Revenue agreed with the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the plaintiff was dispossessed in Samvat 2014 and also agreed with the finding given by the Assistant Collector that the defendant petitioner was a sub-tenant right from 2006 and contiriued to remain in possession of the land as such and, therefore, such a tenant/sub-tenant cannot be termed as a trespasser and such tenant is liable to be ejected under section 180(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Board of Revenue while accepting the second appeal and reversing the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority had passed the order of eviction under section 180(1)(b) instead of Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which provisions the suit had been initially filed.

2. Being aggrieved against the order Annexure-11 dated 7.8.1987, tie petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question in Khasra No. 4164 situated at village Kama was a muafi land of Shri Radha Damodarji and Basanta was the pujari of the temple and the petitioner was cultivating the same as a tenant and was paying the rent to the muafidar. After coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, all the State Grants including the muafi were resumed and, therefore, the present land also vested in the State and thus the petitioner had become the tenant of the State and started paying the rent to the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier also the private non-petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 had filed a suit of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent which was dismissed on 28.1.1959 wherein it was admitted by the other party that the petitioner was a tenant. It is stated that the muafi was resumed in the year 1962 and at the time of resumption of muafi, the p