Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 520/2021
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Illegal Entry - Land Dispute - Act of 1955 - [Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 10] - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, particularly Section 10, and its application in the dispute over the entry of land in the revenue record. The court emphasized the importance of impleading all relevant parties and the significance of challenging relevant orders in the legal proceedings. The court found that the appellant intentionally did not implead the registered owner of the disputed land and failed to challenge certain orders, leading to the rejection of the stay application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an appeal to challenge the rejection of their writ petition seeking to declare certain orders as illegal and to restore the name of the petitioner temple in the revenue record. The court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the material available on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to implead the registered owner of the disputed land and did not challenge relevant orders, leading to the rejection of the stay application.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the orders related to the disputed land and the impleadment of relevant parties in the legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of impleading all relevant parties and the significance of challenging relevant orders in the legal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the stay application, vacating the interim stay order granted in favor of the appellant.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the instant intra court appeal being aggrieved of the judgment-cum-final order dated 09.07.2021 whereby, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8621/2021 preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers, was rejected:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-20) Passed by Tehsildar, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and further the application (Annexure-18) filed by the respondents, may kindly be rejected.
That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the entry of the Jamabandi (Anexure-21) may kindly be directed to restore in the name of petitioner temple Shri Thakur Ji village Pal, Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be directed to enter the name of the Doli Banam Temple Shri Thakur Ji in land of village Pal, Khasara No. 93 and 93/1 rakba 81.13 Bigha and Khasra no. 4 Rakba 22 Bigha, 13 Biswa.
That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 01.04.2012 (Annexure-16) Passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."
2. While entertaining the instant appeal, this Court passed an interim stay order dated 13.09.2021 directing that effect and operation of the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-2) passed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur shall remain stayed and no third party right shall be created over the disputed land and the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained.
3. The matter is heard today on confirmation of the interim stay order dated 13.09.2021.
4. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the appellantwrit petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that at the time of settlement, the land was entered as a Khudkast land of the Temple Shri Thakur Ji and was maintained by its priest. However, on the basis of some circulars issued by the Department of Revenue and the Devasthan Department, the land came to be entered in the name of the Priest who executed sale deed in favour of certain private persons. 20.13 Bighas of land, which was recorded in the name of Beridas, was transferred to the respondents Prakash Chandra, etc. and their names were entered in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2053-2056 as khatedar tenants. Subsequently, on the basis of a direction given by the State Government and the circulars issued in this regard, it was ordered to delete the name of the priests from the revenue record and to restore the land to the deity. The District Collector, Jodhpur, in turn, issued the order dated 09.12.2004 and directed the Tehsildar to delete the entries of transfer of the deity land to the priests. Hanuman Das and few others challenged the said order dated 09.12.2004 by filing an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur which was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2005.
5. Shri Moti Singh urges that the said order dated 1.6.2005 was never challenged and thus, has attained finality but despite that, the Divisional Commissioner entertained and accepted another highly belated appeal and set aside the order dated 9.12.2004 by order dated 1.4.2012. He urges that the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner as a consequence whereof, the questioned order dated 8.9.2021 has been passed, is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and hence, the court rightly passed the interim stay order which should be confirmed.
6. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Joshi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Chandraveer Singh appearing for the private respondents urges that the petitioner appellant has concealed material facts while filing the wri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of impleading all relevant parties and challenging relevant orders in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and just decision.
Temple land is considered perpetual property and cannot be recorded in the name of a priest, affirming the temple's ownership rights.
The main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.
Clerical errors in land revenue records can be corrected to reflect true ownership, and such corrections should not be interfered with if substantiated.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes in mutation cases; established rights remain intact despite challenges.
Land recorded as khudkasht land in the name of the Temple belongs to the deity, and the pujari/shebait cannot acquire such land.
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
