1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question originally belonged to deity of Hanumanji Maharaj and Ram Sahai Swami was its priest (Pujari). It appears that sons of Ram Sahai had sold the said land to the appellant and on the basis of the sale-deed, a mutation was entered in the name of the appellant. The Settlement Officer had directed that the name of the appellant be entered as the Khatedar of the said land. The Board of Revenue considered the question of limitation and came to the conclusion that it is a case where the reference should be considered after a period of one year and according to it, the proceedings relating to the reference were initiated within a reasonable time. The appellant assailed the order of the Board of Revenue by filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The leaned Single Judge vide order dated November 17, 1998 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before us.

3. In Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) WLC 336 , the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had held that normally the powers under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 should be exercised within one year but at the same time, the Division Bench indicated as under

"However, we make it clear that in case where fraud is alleged and public interest is shown to be suffering on account of collusion between the public officers and the private party, this revisional power may be exercised even after a period of one year."

4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, vociferoulsy criticized the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Board of Revenue.

5. The learned Single Judge while interpreting Section 46 held as under :

"Obviously, it is well-settled in law that idol/deity is a perpetual minor, having right to hold agricultural land and land in his name cannot be transferred. Khatedari rights do not accrue in the land, belonging to a minor, according to Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Land, held in Mafi, by a deity, but cultivated by any person, would still be regarded as in personal cultivation of the deity, who is a perpetual minor and enjoys the protection of Section 46 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Khatedari rights, therefore, would not accrue to a person, cultivating the land of an idol/deity. Therefore, the transfer of the land of the idol/deity, by the sons of the pujari, to the petitioner, is unauthorised & illegal and nothing has passed to the petitioner-vendee, and the land continues to vest in the deity or the temple. Even if the sons of the Pujari were cultivating the land, they were doing so, on behalf of the deity or idol. Khatedari rights in the land of the deity or the temple, cannot be acquired by them, merely because, they were cultivating it. Therefore, the sons of the Pujari, i.e., Richhpal & Badri, cannot sell the Khatedari rights in the land in question, which belonged to the idol/deity/temple."

6. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ram Lal & Anr. v. Board of Revenue & Ors., RLR 1990 (1) 161 to show that the land in question was not khudkasht land of deley nut cultivated by tenantss and after resumption of Jagir, the land should be treated as Khatedari land of the tenant.

7. This judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Ram Pratap & Anr. v. Board of Revenue & Ors., 1994 RRD 1 and it was held that an idol is a perpetual minor and, therefore, it is not expected to cultivate the land-)ersonally and in such a case, the land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally even in the absence of such personal supervision of the deity. It was observed as under

"Under the provisions of Section 19, no khatedari rights could accrue to "ie petitioners, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of the Act, 1955. Section 45 imposes restrictions on letting and sub-letting on holder of "