The court affirmed the authority of the Board of Revenue to rectify mistakes in land ownership records and clarified the jurisdiction of the Land Settlement Department in conferring khatedari rights.

1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.2809/2010, whereby the said writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 28.05.1993 and 22.05.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar (Land Records), Taranagar, Churu had moved an application before the District Collector, Churu to the effect that land of Khasra Nos. 884, 1155, 1165, 889, 1193, 1293, 1344 of village Sahava, Tehsil Taranagar, was recorded in the name of Mandir Shri Narsingh Dasji in Samvat Year 2011, however, in Samvat Year 2020, the land was wrongly recorded in the name of Ganesha and others (Pujaris) and later, they had alienated the said land to others therefore, names of Pujaris as Khatedars of the land be removed and the land in question be recorded in the name of Mandir.

3. The matter thereafter placed before the Board of Revenue in reference proceedings. The said reference was ultimately accepted by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 22.05.2000, wherein the Board of Revenue has observed that the counsel for the Pujaris has admitted that the land was in the Khatedari of Mandir Narsingh Dasji and it has wrongly been entered in the name of the respondents, and if the land is recorded in the name of the Mandir, respondents have no objections. However, while passing the order dated 22.05.2000, the Board of Revenue has taken into consideration the relevant revenue record and held that the land in question was recorded in the name of Mandir prior to settlement proceedings but during the said proceeding, the land was illegally recorded in the name of Pujaris because the Land Settlement Department has no jurisdiction to confer Khatedari rights to any person. On the basis of above reasoning, the Board of Revenue had ordered that the land of the above referred Khasras be recorded in the name of Mandir Murthi Narsingh Dasji after deleting the name of the Pujaris.

4. The appellants had preferred a review application before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2010. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred SBCWP No.2809/2010, which too came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Board of Revenue has wrongly accepted the reference on the basis of the consent of the parties, though no such consent was given by the counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that being Pujaris of the Mandir, Khyali and others are entitled to be recorded as Khatedar and there was no illegality in the action in recording them as Khatedar in the revenue record but the Board of Revenue has illegally ordered for deleting the names of Pujaris as Khatedar from the revenue record. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that on the question regarding conferment of Khatedari rights to Pujaris in the land belonging to Mandir, a reference is pending consideration before the Larger Bench of this Court and, therefore, the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the matter till the final decision of the Larger Bench of this Court on the point in issue.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has argued that as the land was wrongly recorded in the names of Pujaris, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly ordered for deletion of the names of the Pujaris, while directing to record the land in question in the name of Mandir. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has also argued that before the Board of Revenue, the counsel for the appellants and other Pujaris made a specific statement that the land has wrongly been recorded in the name of Pujaris and if the same is now recorded in the name of Mandir, the Pujaris have no objections. The learned counsel