A sub-tenant cannot acquire Khatedari rights over Muafi land that has been resumed by the State Government unless they have applied for permission to continue in possession of the land as Khudkasht or as a sub-tenant.

1. :- The case of the petitioners in short is that land bearing Khasra No. 235/279 measuring 11 Bighas and 12 Biswa of Village Amrit Kuwa, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota was the Muafi land of Asthal Bardiya and Heera Das son of Ram Kishan Das was its Muafidar. The said Muafi land after introduction of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 for short "the Act of 1952" was resumed under Section 22 of the said Act and all rights, title and interest of the Muafidar stood vested with the State Government w.e.f. 1.7.1963. It is further the petitioners's case that long before the resumption of Jagirs, the original Muafidar namely Heeradas died and there was no heir of said Muafidar. Birdha, the husband of petitioner No.1 Naini Bai and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 have been cultivating this land since long. The Tehsildar Sangod also authorised Birdha to cultivate this land on payment of rent and the name of Birdha was recorded as khatedar tenant in the revenue records. The Mutation order dated 29.5.1954 was passed long before the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for short "the Act of 1955" came into force w.e.f. 15.10.1955. At the time of resumption of Muafi, the said land stood vested with the State Government by operation of law and hence ceased to hold the character of Muafi. Birdha who was tenant over the said land long before the commencement of the Act of 1955 automatically became the Khatedar tenant of the said land as per Section 15 of the said Act and the Mutation of Khatedar was opened by Tehsildar Sangod on 5.7.1969. Thereafter, Birdha was recorded as tenant in possession in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2019 to 2022. The petitioners acquired Khatedari rights as sub-tenant being the wife and legal heirs of late Birdha by efflux of time and consequently by operation of law as on the date when the Act of 1955 came into force and since then they were in cultivators possession of the land as Khatedars, continued to be so till date.

2. Before referring to the legal aspect of the matter with reference to the provisions of the Act of 1952 as well as the Act of 1955, it is pertinent to mention the background of the case. which has given rise to the filing of this writ petition.

3. In the year 1987, Tehsildar (Revenue Records) Sangod requested the Additional Collector, Kota to make a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for short "the Act of 1956" regarding the status Muafi land of Math Asthal Bardiya. Tehsildar Sangod opened Mutation of Khatedari under Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The contention of the petitioners is that Tehsildar was not empowered to confer any khatedari rights to any person on a Muafi land other than the petitioners. Being unaware of the correct legal position as regards vesting of the Muafi land as on the date when the Act of 1952 as well as Act of 1955 came into force and as per the provisions of the Act of 1952, consequent upon the abolition of Jagirs in the State of Rajasthan of erstwhile Jagirdars, all the lands which were hitherto held by the Jagirdars including the land in dispute were resumed and consequent upon the same all rights, title and interest stood vested with the State Government by operation of law w.e.f. 1.7.1963, i.e. the date when the Act of 1952 came into force. Consequently, Additional Collector, Kota made a Reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer with a view to ascertain the status of khatedars who were hitherto in cultivatory possession of the similarly placed lands including the suit land. In other words, the very object of the legislature in introducing the Act of 1955 was with a view to clarify the position with respect to the conferment of Khatedari Rights on any person who is Khudkasht or who was holding the possession of the land in the capacity as a sub-tenant. On this aspect of the matter, the legal position is very clearly settled that no khatedari rights shall accrue to a sub-tenant or even