Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3589, 3526, 3527 of 2023
Decided On : 02-09-2023
Land Revenue Act - Section 136 - Land - Mutation - Legal heirs – Held, Court also observes that private respondents’ names were entered in the revenue records in relation to khudkasht land in question; previously, said land was registered in name of Temple (Doli) under khudkhasht category, and therefore, father of private respondents, being Pujari of Temple and thereafter, the private respondents as his legal heirs, cannot claim any right over such land - Court further observes that State Government issued a circular for deleting name of Pujari from record pertaining to land of Temple, and State Government issued another circular stated therein that name of Pujari qua the land of Temple is maintained - Court is thus of opinion that the learned revenue authorities below fell into an error of law in passing the impugned orders, as same were passed without taking into due consideration, amongst others, precedent laws laid down on the subject, particularly, law laid down and impugned orders are not sustainable in eye of law - Petitions are allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The land in question was initially recorded as a khudkasht (self-cultivated) land of the deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj, and the management was carried out by the priest Pema Ram. After his death, the land was entered in the names of his legal heirs, the private respondents (!) (!) .
Circulars issued by the government in the early 1990s directed that the names of priests or pujaris should not be recorded in revenue records concerning temple lands, and that such entries should be deleted. Subsequent circulars clarified that the name of the deity should be maintained in the records (!) (!) (!) .
The private respondents filed an application under relevant land revenue law to correct the entries in the revenue records, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by the authorities, leading to their names being entered as khatedars (tenants) and cultivators of the land (!) (!) .
The petitioners, representing the deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj, argued that the land was recorded in the name of the deity and that the private respondents, being legal heirs of the priest, could not claim rights over the land. They also contended that the proceedings were initiated without impleading the deity as a party and that the circulars relied upon cannot be applied retrospectively (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioners further argued that the land was a temple property, managed as a perpetual minor (a juristic person), and thus protected from claims by private persons. They emphasized that the land was recorded as temple land at the time of settlement and that the claim of the private respondents is barred by law due to the long-standing recording and the applicable legal principles concerning temple and deity properties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the authorities below erred in passing their orders without considering the legal provisions and precedents, especially the law that temple lands recorded as khudkasht for the deity cannot be altered without proper legal process and parties (!) (!) (!) .
The court also highlighted that circulars issued by the government, which are contrary to the law laid down, cannot be relied upon to change the legal status of temple lands (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the authorities to restore the original entries in favor of the deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj, reaffirming that the land belongs to the temple and that the private respondents' claims are not sustainable under the law (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that any circulars or orders contrary to the legal principles established in the judgment would not be valid and must be disregarded (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal considerations, procedural issues, and the court's conclusions regarding the rights over the temple land, the effect of government circulars, and the importance of proper legal procedure in such matters.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3589/2023, while treating the same as a lead case.
2. The prayer clauses read as under :
- That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure-36) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in appeal no.7169/2017 titled as State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar v. Girdhari Singh, and order dated 23.04.2014 passed by Sub-Division Officer, Jodhpur in application No.82/2013 (Annexure-16) titled as “Girdhari Singh v. State of Rajasthan” as also the order dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-17) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur in appeal No.18/2015 “State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Singh”, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act may kindly be dismissed.
- By an appropriate order or direction may kindly be issued and respondent-Tehsildar, Jodhpur may direct to restore the entry of the name of deity as “Doli Banam Shri Pabuji Maharaj” in revenue record of Khasra No.296 rakba 113 bigha 9 biswa (including the Sub-Division No.296/1, 296/2 etc.) of Village Sangariya, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.
- 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.”
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that a land comprising Khasra No.296 (Rakba 113 Bighas 9 Biswa) was entered as a khudkasht land of petitioner-Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj, and the mutation entry was made in the name of Priest, namely, Shri Pema Ram, whereafter, the land was managed by him; after the death of Priest-Pema Ram, the mutation, in respect of the land in question, was entered in the name of his legal heirs (sons).
3.1. In the year 1991, the Revenue Department had issued a circular dated 13.12.1991, whereby a direction was issued to the Collectors of all the Districts, to the effect that in relation to any Doli land, the name of the Priest of any Temple, shall not be entered in the revenue records, with a further direction to delete the names of the Priests, whose names have already been entered in the mutation (revenue records). The respondent-State vide order dated 29.10.1992, directed all the District Collectors to organize a revenue camp for protecting the rights of Temple(s) and their land(s). Thereafter, on 11.11.1992, the respondent no.2-District Collector, directed the respondent no.3-Tehsildar to prepare the records of all the lands belonging to the Temple(s) in the Jodhpur District.
3.2. In the year 2003, the Devasthan Department had issued a circular, directing all the District Collectors to delete all kinds of entries, which were made due to transfer of the Deity lands, by the Priest or any other person. On 27.03.2003, the respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.3 to delete the entry of any kind of transfer of the Deity land. Thereafter, the entry of the Priest’s name, in relation to the Deity land(s), was deleted by the Revenue Department, and such land(s) was entered in the name of “Doli Banam Pabuji Maharaj” in the jamabadi.
3.3. The private respondents and others filed an application under Section 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Jodhpur for correction of the entry in the revenue records, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2012.
3.4. Against the said order, the private respondents preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Additional Commiss
The main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.
Land recorded as khudkasht land in the name of the Temple belongs to the deity, and the pujari/shebait cannot acquire such land.
Ownership of land recorded under a deity cannot be transferred; any attempts to do so result in void transactions, reaffirming perpetual minor status of deities.
The authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors in the revenue record during settlement operations and the inability to change the nature of the land through such corrections.
(1) Right to alienate properties of temple – Pujari cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami. Pujari does not have any right in land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of Pujari do not stand o....
The legal principle established is that tenants cultivating land for a deity do not confer tenancy rights to the deity, and such land becomes Khatedari of the tenant under the Rajasthan Land Reforms ....
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
