The court held that the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner Devasthan had the jurisdiction to order a fresh enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, and the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, as the nature of the grant of Ramdwara was 'Udak', which means for charity purpose, while the grant of 25 bighas Aakodiya & Bhawani Shankerpura was in Bhog of temple Mahadeoji. The court held that a factual enquiry was needed to determine whether the grant of Ramdwara was an absolute gift to the predecessor in title of the petitioner or a grant for "Seva Pooja" of the Idol Mahadeoji.

Headnote:
RAJASTHAN LAND REFORMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 21, 22, 23 - RULES 21, 22 - RAJASTHAN PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 7 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - DISPUTE OVER PROPERTY OWNERSHIP - ENQUIRY AND DECLARATION - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES - VALIDITY OF REMAND ORDERS - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute concerned the ownership of a property known as Chota Ramdwara, situated near Diggi House, Jaipur, and two other grants in villages Bhawani Shankerpura and Aakodiya. The State Government issued a Notification under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, resuming all Jagir lands with an annual income below Rs. 1,000/-. The possession of the grant Chhota Ramdwara was not delivered to the State Government, leading to legal challenges and administrative actions. Respondent Mahant Ramswaroop claimed the property as his personal property and filed an application under Section 23 of the Act for declaration of the disputed property as his personal property. The Jagir Commissioner rejected the application, holding that the entire grant belonged to the temple of Mahadeoji and that the Mahant's status was only that of a 'Pujari'. The State Government and Mahant Ram Swaroop filed separate appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue rejected the State Government's appeal as not maintainable and allowed Mahant Ram Swaroop's appeal, setting aside the Jagir Commissioner's order and directing a fresh enquiry. Mahant Ram Swaroop filed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order, which was consolidated with another writ petition filed by him against the Devsthan Commissioner's order pertaining to the same property.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in declaring the disputed property to be the private property of Mahant Ram Swaroop under Section 23 of the Act and in setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Jagir Commissioner. The court found that the nature of the grant of Ramdwara was 'Udak', which means for charity purpose, while the grant of 25 bighas Aakodiya & Bhawani Shankerpura was in Bhog of temple Mahadeoji. The court held that a factual enquiry was needed to determine whether the grant of Ramdwara was an absolute gift to the predecessor in title of the petitioner or a grant for "Seva Pooja" of the Idol Mahadeoji. The court also held that the Commissioner Devasthan had the jurisdiction to pass the order for fresh enquiry under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, as the property involved was very valuable and it was necessary to hold proper enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declaring the disputed property to be the private property of Mahant Ram Swaroop under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952? 2. Whether the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner Devasthan had the jurisdiction to order a fresh enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules? 3. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Jagir Commissioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in declaring the disputed property to be the private property of Mahant Ram Swaroop under Section 23 of the Act because there was no finding by the Jagir Commissioner or the Board of Revenue that the property in dispute was the personal property of respondent Ram Swaroop. The court also held that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Jagir Commissioner because the Board of Revenue had rightly remanded the matter for enquiry in accordance with law and the Commissioner Devasthan had the jurisdiction to pass the order for fresh enquiry under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. 2. The court held that the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner Devasthan had the jurisdiction to order a fresh enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules because the nature of the grant of Ramdwara was 'Udak', which means for charity purpose, while the grant of 25 bighas Aakodiya & Bhawani Shankerpura was in Bhog of temple Mahadeoji. The court held that a factual enquiry was needed to determine whether the grant of Ramdwara was an absolute gift to the predecessor in title of the petitioner or a grant for "Seva Pooja" of the Idol Mahadeoji.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set-aside, and the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 21-05-1981 and the Commissioner Devsthan dated 2406-1982 were restored. The matter was remanded to the Jagir Commissioner to comply with the directions given by the Board of Revenue as also with the order of this Court dated 10-07-1967. The Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan was also directed to proceed with the enquiry as per the order of the Commissioner, Devsthan.

JUDGMENT

1. - These 3 Special Appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance arise out of the same order of the learned Single Judge dated February 17, 1986, therefore, all the 3 appeals are disposed of by this one judgment.

2. The subject matter of the dispute is the property known as Chota Ramdawara, situated near Diggi House, Jaipur. There are other two grants also in village Bhawani Shankerpura and Aakodiya. The State Government issued a Notification under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952(hereinafter called as "the Act") and appointed 01-07-1963 as the date of resumption of all Jagir lands with an annual income below Rs. 1,000/- according to the original grant and the income of which is utilised for maintenance of any place of worship. When the possession of the grant Chhota Ramdwara was not delivered to the State Government, steps for taking over possession were taken by the Government in the year 1966, which was challenged by the respondent Mahant Ramswaroop in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 958/66, before this court. This writ petition of Mahant Ram Swaroop was accepted on 10-07-1967 on the ground that before taking possession of the property resumed, the State Government has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules. It was further observed by this court that the State Government will be at liberty to take any act on according to law, but the property cannot be resumed by administrative action. In view of the judgment of this Court, the Collector, Jaipur appointed Tehsildar, Jaipur to take charge of the disputed property and did not refer the question to the Jagir Commissioner. Respondent Mahant Ram Swaroop claimed the property as his personal property and filed an application on 28-09-1967, under Section 23 of the Act for declaration of the disputed property as his personal property. The Jagir Commissioner sent his application to the Collector for enquiry and report. The Collector Jagir sent his report and recommended for declaration as personal property on the ground that 'Maimi' has been sanctioned in the past as Nigang Pujari of Ramdwara (temple of Mahadeoji) in favour of respondent Ram Swaroop, as such it may be declared as personal property in the same capacity. Tehsildar, Jaipur also, after enquiry, sent his report on 09-01-1968. However, the Jagir Commissioner after perusal of the entire documents and evidence produced by the parties, was of the view that the entire grant belongs to the temple of Mahadeoji including Ramdwara and the status of the Mahant is found only that of a 'Pujari' and as such he is not entitled to get the disputed property declared as his personal property. The Jagir Commissioner while rejecting the application of Mahant Ram Swaroop on 29-01-1977, did not make any enquiry regarding the fact that who is Jagirdar and whether the property is liable to be resumed by the State, nor any findings on these questions were given by him. The State Government and Mahant Ram Swaroop both filed separate appeals against the said order of Jagir Commissioner before the Board of Revenue. The State Government contended that the Jagir Commissioner should have held that the property vested in the State after resumption and is Government-property rather than holding it to be the temple property. Mahant Ram Swaroop, on the other hand contended that the nature of the property in dispute is covered under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, he was entitled to get it declared as his personal property. The Board of Revenue heard the appeals and vide its judgment dated 21-05-1981 rejected the appeal filed by the State as not maintainable since no order had been passed by the Jagir Commissioner regarding the disputed property under Rule 21. The appeal of Mahant Ram Swaroop was allowed and the order of Jagir Commissioner dated 29-01-1977 was set-aside and the Board of Revenue gave a direction to the Jagir Commissioner to strictly comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(Raj) 610

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHJ.S.Verma, I.S.Israni, JJ.Ram Bharose Sharma & Ors. - AppellantsVersusState of Rajasthan And Ors. - RespondentsD.B. Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 153 of 1986.Decided On : 21-04-1987

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.S.Verma, I.S.Israni, JJ.
Ram Bharose Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 153 of 1986.
Decided On : 21-04-1987