Upon the resumption of jagir lands under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, all rights, title, and interest of the Jagirdar and every other person claiming through him in his jagir lands, including Muafi lands, stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances.

1. - Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both these writ petitions, they have been heard finally and decided by this common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and given thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was already in possession of the land in question much prior to the introduction of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952) came into force i.e. Samwat 2009 (1952). Sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the Act of 1952, which stipulates the consequences of resumption are as under:

(1) As from the date of resumption of any jagir lands notwithstanding anything contained in any existing jagir law applicable thereto but save as otherwise provided in this Act,

(a) all rights, title and interest of the Jagirdar and of every other person claiming through him (X X X X) in his jagir lands, including forest, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village sites, hats, bazars and mela grounds and mines and minerals whether being worked or not, shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances;

(b) all rights, title and interests created in or over the jagir by the jagirdar or his predecessor-in-interest shall, as against the Government, cease and determine;

(c) all rents and cesses in respect of any holding (including any land leased by or on behalf of the jagirdar for any purpose other than agriculture) in the jagir land for any period after the date of resumption which, but for such resumption, would have been payable to the jagirdar, shall be payable to the Government;.... .

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is a sub-tenant of late Mangya Meena and therefore, since the tenancy of original tenant Mangya was not cancelled, he was in cultivatory possession of the land ever since 1952 and the question of resumption of sub tenancy of the petitioner by the State Government upon introduction of the Act of 1952 would not arise.

5. His further contention is that as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Tenancy Act), every person who was not so entered in the records but was a tenant of Khudkasht or sub-tenant of land, other than grove land the rights shall accrue to such person.

6. Another contention as advanced by the learned counsel is that the land was a Muafi land in the name of Deity, which is a perpetual minor and which was in possession of late Mangya through whom the petitioners are claiming their legal rights, the land held by the Deity could not be resumed by the State Government even upon the introduction of the Act of 1952 or when the Act of 1955 came into force.

7. I have examined the aforesaid contentions as advanced by the learned counsel at the bar with reference to the finding recorded by the courts below, i.e. the Additional Collector as well as the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue in its impugned order dated 4.5.98 (Ann.3) has observed that on a request made by the State Government under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956) through the Additional Collector Tonk vide order dated 18.1.1986, the matter was taken up by the Board for detailed examination. The Board after examining the matter has categorically observed that the court below had issued notices to the non-petitioners but despite notices, they remained absent and as such, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. It has been further observed that on the basis of the entries made in the revenue record, the learned Additional Collector found that in the Khatauni of Samwat year 2011 to 2030 the land in dispute has been shown in Col No. 3 as Muafi land of the Deity and the Pujaris of the temple were Prabhu (non-petitioner No. 3) and Mangya through whom the petitioners are claiming their cultivatory and possessory rights as Legal Representatives.

8.