Back
(Rajasthan High Court)
Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Ambwani, CJ.)
HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, CJ.
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
HON'BLE P.K. LOHRA, J.
Tara & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 with 35 other connected matters,
decided on 15.07.2015
¼d½ jktLFkku Hkwfe lq/kkj ,oa tkxhj iqujkjEHk vf/kfu;e] 1952] /kkjk 22¼1½¼d½] 23 & D;k Mksyhnkj ;k ekQhnkj ds :i esa fgUnw ewfrZ }kjk tkxhj esa /kkfjr Hkwfe ewfrZ ds ,d dk'rdkj ds :i esa mlds lsok;r@iqtkjh }kjk fu;qDr HkkM+s ds Jfed ;k ukSdj }kjk ;k ewfrZ ds lsok;r@iqtkjh ds vykok fdlh O;fDr }kjk tksrh xbZ Hkwfe dks vc Hkh ewfrZ ds futh dk'r gksuk ekuk tk;sxk ;k ,slh Hkwfe dks ewfrZ ds dk'rdkj ds :i esa tksrus okys O;fDr dh dk'r esa gksuk ekuk tk;sxk\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & tkxhj vf/kfu;e] 1952 ds ckn ,slh Hkwfe jkT; esa fufgr gksxh & fgUnw ewfrZ dks 'kk'or ukckfyx gksuk eku Hkh fy;k tk;s rks] og ,slh Hkwfe dks /kkfjr ugha j[k ldrh Fkh &,slh Hkwfe dks mldh futh dk'r esa gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk & ,slh Hkwfe dks tksrus okys dk'rdkj dks ljdkj ds [kkrsnkj ds vf/kdkj gkfly gks x;s & fgUnw ewfrZ ds lsok;r@iqtkjh ds vykok fdlh O;fDr dh dk'rdkjh ds vUrxZr ,slh Hkwfe ,sls dk'rdkj dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gqbZ & [kkrsnkj ds :i esa Hkwfe dk nkok djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k lsok;r@iqtkjh ds lkFk jktLo vfHkys[k ls ,slh Hkwfe ls fgUnw ewfrZ dk uke gVkuk Fkk & ,slh Hkwfe dk vUrj.k djus dk mUgsa dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vr% ,sls lHkh vUrj.kksa dks 'kwU; o vd`r ds :i esa ekuk tkuk t:jh gS &,slh Hkwfe dk ljdkj }kjk iquxzg.k fd;k tkosA ¼in la[;k 48½
(b) Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, Sec. 22 and 23 — What are the rights of Hindu Idol (deity) in the land held by them in the name of its Shebaits/Punjaris on the date of resumption of such Jagir — Held — The Idol (deity) did not have any rights except in khudkasht land cultivated by Shebait/Pujari for the benefit of the expenses of temple including Sewa puja — Land let out by them to tenants or sub-tenants were resumed by the Jagir Act — Idol lost all the rights in such jagir lands. (Para 48)
¼[k½ jktLFkku Hkwfe lq/kkj ,oa tkxhj iqujkjEHk vf/kfu;e] 1952] /kkjk 22 o 23 & ,slh tkxhj dh iqujkjEHk dh frfFk dks fgUnw ewfrZ ds lsok;r@iqtkjh ds uke ls muds }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe esa fgUnw ewfrZ ds vf/kdkj D;k gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lsok iwtk lfgr eafnj ds [kpsZ ds ifjykHk gsrq lsok;r@iqtkjh }kjk tksrh xbZ [kqndk'r Hkwfe esa ds flok; ewfrZ dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk & muds }kjk dk'rdkjksa ;k mi dk'rdkjksa dks nh xbZ Hkwfe dks tkxhj vf/kfu;e }kjk fQj ls izkIr dj yh xbZ Fkh & ,slh tkxhj Hkwfe esa ewfrZ us lkjs vf/kdkj [kks fn;s FksA ¼in la[;k 48½
(c) Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, Sec. 22 and 23 — Jagir land/Muafi held by Shebait/Punjari of Hindu Idol in their name after the date of resumption of Jagir will not give them right nor they could alienate the land — The alienation made by them of such land would be null and void and will have no effect. (Para 48)
¼x½ jktLFkku Hkwfe lq/kkj ,oa tkxhj iqujkjEHk vf/kfu;e] 1952] /kkjk 22] 23 & tkxhj ds iqujkjEHk dh frfFk ds ckn fgUnw ewfrZ ds lsok;r@iqtkjh }kjk vius uke ij /kkfjr tkxhj@ekQh Hkwfe mUgsa u rks vf/kdkj nsxh vkSj u gh ml Hkwfe dks vU; laØke.k dj ldrs Fks & ,slh Hkwfe dk muds }kjk fd;k x;k vU; laØke.k vd`r vkSj 'kwU; gksxk vkSj mldk dksbZ izHkko ugha gksxkA
¼in la[;k 48½
(d) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 82 and Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 232 — Whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/Sec. 82 of 1956 Act or Sec. 232 of 1955 Act in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity)? — Held — No time limit has been fixed for reference — Reference can be made within a reasonable time. (Para 48)
Questions answered accordingly.
¼?k½ jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 82 vkSj jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 232 & D;k 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 82 ;k 1955 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 232 ds rgr fgUnw ewfrZ }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe ds lca/k esa jsQjsal gsrq dksbZ le; lhek r; dh tk ldrh gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jsQjsal gsrq dksbZ lee; lhek r; ugha dh xbZ gS &jsQjsal ,d rdZ laxr le; ds Hkhrj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼in la[;k 48½
rn~uqlkj iz'uksa dk mRrj fn;kA
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Land held in Jagir by a Hindu deity (idol), whether cultivated directly by the deity or through a Shebait/Pujari, is not considered as the deity's personal cultivation after the enactment of the Jagir Act of 1952. Such land is to vest in the State, and the deity's rights are limited to khudkasht land cultivated for temple expenses, including sewa puja (!) (!) .
Lands held in the name of Shebaits/Pujaris after the resumption of Jagir lands are considered resumed by the State, and the deity loses all rights in these lands. These lands cannot be alienated or transferred by the Shebaits/Pujaris after resumption, and any such transfers are null and void (!) (!) .
The rights of a Hindu deity in Jagir lands are limited to khudkasht lands cultivated directly by the Shebait/Pujari or through hired labor or servants. The deity does not have rights in lands leased out to tenants or sub-tenants after the resumption, and such lands are to be treated as the rights of the tenants or the State (!) (!) .
The land held in Jagir by a deity, if cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari or through hired labor, becomes the khatedari land of that person, and the deity's name must be expunged from revenue records. Such lands are not in the personal cultivation of the deity and are to be resumed by the State (!) (!) .
No person can acquire rights by adverse possession against the lands that have been resumed or are under tenancy rights of khatedars. The applicable limitation period under the relevant tenancy laws prevails, and adverse possession claims are not sustainable against the State or lawful tenants (!) (!) .
There is no fixed time limit for making references regarding land held by a Hindu deity under relevant revenue laws. Such references can be made within a reasonable period, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Even in cases of alleged fraud, the exercise of such powers must be within a reasonable timeframe and not after an unreasonable delay of several decades (!) (!) .
The legal position emphasizes that a Hindu deity, being a perpetual minor and a juristic person, cannot directly cultivate land or hold rights in land through legal persons or through indirect means unless specifically recognized under law. The land rights are limited to direct cultivation by Shebaits/Pujaris or tenants, with the State holding the residual rights after the abolition of Jagirs (!) (!) .
The transfer or alienation of Jagir or Muafi lands by Shebaits/Pujaris after the resumption is invalid. The lands, once resumed by the State, are not transferable by the Shebaits/Pujaris, and any such transfers are null and void (!) (!) .
These points reflect the legal principles and findings as summarized from the detailed judgments and legal discussions in the document.
“(i) Whether the land held in Jagir, by Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, such idol being treated as a perpetual minor, will still be regarded as land held in the personal cultivation of the deity or will such land be regarded as held in the tenancy by the person cultivating such land as tenant of a deity?
(ii) What are the rights of the Hindu Idol (deity) in the lands held by them in the name of its Shebaits/Pujari on the date of resumption of such Jagir, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952?
(iii) Whether such a Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) can be alienated by them? If so, what is the effect?
(iv) Whether any person can acquire right by adverse possession in the lands of aforesaid nature against the holder?
(v) Whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and u/s.232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity). If so, to what extent?”
2. A large number of writ petitions are pending in the Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur as well as at Bench, Jaipur, awaiting the decision on these questions referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3263/1997 Ramesh Chand Tiwari & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2000(2) RLR 269) on 21st February, 2000. Learned Single Judge referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Lal & Anr. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1990(1) RLR 161), in which it was held that the deity/idol is a juristic person, having right to hold the property including the agricultural land and that, the land in question not being khudkasht of the deity and was cultivated by the tenants, as such, after the resumption of jagirs, the land should be treated as khatedari land of the tenants and another judgment of learned Single Judge in Bal Kishan vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (2000 (1) RLR 69), in which, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepa vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ((1996) 1 SCC 612), it was held that the petitioner acquired the tenancy rights over the Muafi land of the deity under the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short, “the Jagirs Act of 1952”). It was noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangi Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997(2) RLR 755) had held that the deity/idol is treated to be a minor or physically disabled person and acquires khatedari rights over the land and such rights cannot be transferred to any other person and that necessary corrections can be made inspite of inordinate delay. In Temple of Thakurji Village Kansar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1998(3) WLC(Raj.) 387) and Ram Lal & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue (2000(1) RLR 258) as well as in Naini Bai & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2000(1) RLR 143), the rights of the deity were upheld by learned Single Judge. The point of delay in making the reference was also considered in the case of Lad Bai & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue (2000(1) RLR 123).
3. Learned Single Judge noticed that in all the aforesaid decisions, there is absence of any clarity on the questions of law and felt that in view of the large number of cases pending in the revenue courts at various stages, it would be appropriate that this Court may decide the issues by framing appropriate questions.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/2001 Tara & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
