No tenancy right can be acquired against a minor deity.

1. - This is a special appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th October, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the land in question was in possession of the appellant for the last 40 years and he was a sub- tenant of the same. By virtue of his being in possession for more than the prescribed period he acquired Khatedari right and he could not be evicted from the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to take us through some certified papers filed in order to support the claim of the appellant of the Khatedari rights.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, gone through the record and have also perused the judgments of the Sub Divisional Officer, Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. All these authorities have concurrently found that the land belongs to the temple. It is established law that deity is perpetual minor and no tenancy right can be acquired against a minor. The learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. Law laid down by the Division Bench in Ram Lal and another v. Board of Revenue and others, 1990(1) RLR 161 , is fully applicable in the present case.

4. Paragraph 20 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his claim, in fact, does not support him. The paragraph on the contrary is against the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. This being the position we find that the appeal is devoid of force and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. In the result the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal dismissed.

*******