The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of the rights of the perpetual minor and the appointment of a receiver for temple land under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

1. - Non-petitioner No.3 filed a suit for perpetual injunction on 16.12.83 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the deceased father of the petitioners. The plaintiff non-petitioner No.3 was manager of the temple of Moorti Mandir Shri Gangaji Maharaj situated in village Weir which was established by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were alleged to be the managers of the said temple and contended that since the times of their ancestors the plaintiffs were arranging for the Seva Pooja of the temple.

2. The land bearing Khasra No. 1835 measuring 4 bighas 1 biswa situated in village Puria Patti in the muafi of the temple which was continuing in the ownership and possession of the Idol since then and the Seva Pooja and the maintenance of the temple was being done through the earning of the said land. The deceased Jhamman and defendant non-petitioner No.4 had no connection with the suit land nor was Custodian Department in any manner connected with the same but the defendants wanted to grab the above land from the plaintiff non-petitioner No.3 and with this object the deceased defendant Jhamman got his name entered as sub-tenant of the above land in collusion with the Revenue Officers but the said order was cancelled on 5.12.1983 and the suit lands were ordered to be entered in the khatedari of the plaintiff non petitioner. Plaintiff non-petitioner No.3 also filed an application for issuing temporary injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff non petitioner and also prayed for appointment of Receiver. On the application for temporary injunction submitted by the plaintiff non petitioner, the Assistant Collector Bayana vide his order dated 22.12.1983 appointed Tehsildar, Weir as Receiver on the suit lands and also ordered issuance of notices against the defendants. The judgment dated 22.12.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bayana deceased defendant Jhamman filed an appeal on 27.12.1983 in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur and also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19.11.1984. While the appeal of deceased defendant Jhamman was still pending in the court of R.A.A., Bharatpur the S.D.O. Bayana decided the appeal of the deceased defendant vide judgment dated 1.5.86. Deceased defendant Jhamman Singh again filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17.10.1986 in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur vide its judgment dated 16.1.1987 accepted the appeal filed by the deceased defendant Jhamman and the judgment of the Assistant Collector Bayana dated 22.12.1983 was set aside. Against the judgment dated 16.1.1987 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority non-petitioner No.3 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer. During the pendency of the revision petition defendant Jhamman died on 6.10.1987 and the names of the petitioners were ordered to be substituted in this place in the revision petition.

3. The learned Board of Revenue accepted the revision petition filed by the plaintiff non-petitioner vide judgment dated 28.9.94 and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 16.1.87 was set aside and the judgment dated 22.12.83 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bayana was upheld.

4. The petitioner challenged in this writ petition the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Bayana dated 22.12.83 and that of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 28.9.1994 on the ground that the learned Board of Revenue has misconstrued and misinterpreted the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap and Another v. Board of Revenue and Others reported in 1993(1) RLR 307 = 1994 R.R.D. Page 1 . The petitioners' contention is that they are not claiming any right in the disputed land and as such the pronouncement of this Court's judgment i