JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders Annexures 2, 3 and 4 may kindly be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land dispute.

Any other order which this Hon.court considers just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Writ petition be allowed with costs.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners purchased certain lands from the Pujaries of Shri Raghunathji situated in khasra no. 51 of Village Khejriyali, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer on the basis of sale deed dated 14.09.1959, and mutation was opened and recorded as mutation no.14 in the favour of the petitioners and the same was attested by the Sarpanch of the concerned gram panchayat on 25.12.1959. The sale deed was executed by one Roop Dass, and after his death, the respondent nos. 3 to 7 succeeded Roop Dass.

2.1. Thereafter, on an application filed by the Tehsildar, Siwana, the learned Additional Collector, Barmer vide the impugned order dated 25.09.1992 made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, to the Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, for setting aside the three mutations, including the mutation made in favour of the petitioners, and for making an entry in the revenue records, qua the land in question, in favour of Shri Raghunathi Temple, Khejriyali.

2.2 The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 25.01.1993 accepted the reference and set aside all the three mutation entries, including the one made in favour of the petitioners and restored the same in the name of the Deity. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the learned BoR, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 08.01.1996.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mutation in question was attested on 25.12.1959, while the reference in question was made after a huge delay of 34 years, that too without any justification, and thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned revenue authorities below are not justified in law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question from the year 1959, and that, the land was recorded vide mutation no.14 in favour of the petitioners, and the same was also attested by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat on 25.12.1959.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners maintain that they are in rightful possession of the land in question, because after the resumption of Jagirs, the petitioners’ ancestors were in lawful possession of the said land.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned BoR accepted the reference, so made after an inordinate delay and thus, the impugned order passed by the said revenue authority below is highly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Mukna & Ors. Vs Board of Revenue (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 287 of 2002, decided on 02.05.2017).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of idol ‘Doli Mandir Shri Raghunath Ji’ as Khudkasht land in settlement jamabandi of Samvat Year 2009, and therefore, the Pujari-Late Roop Das of the Temple in question had no right to transfer the land in question by way of the sale deed.

4.1. It was further submitted that the Temple (Deity) became the khatedar of the land in question after the resumption, by virtue of the provisions of Sect