JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

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

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:

(a) quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 1-11-1988 (Annexure-5).

(b) dismiss the plaintiff’s application under section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with costs through out.

(c) award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner from the non-petitioner No. 4 to 6.

(d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which the circumstances of the case may warrant be also passed.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner had purchased a land situated in Village Basad, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh through a registered sale deed dated 27.08.1966 from one Guman S/o Mannaji and Manna S/o Deviji Anjana (since deceased).

2.1. Thereafter, the respondents no. 4, 5 & 6 (since deceased represented through their LRs, herein) had filed an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) before the Assistant Collector, Pratapgarh, stating therein that the land in question is a muafi land of the Temple Laxminarayan Ji and they were Pujaris thereof, and Guman and Manna were Shikmis, who sold the land in question to the petitioner without any permission. The learned Assistant Collector rejected the said application on 30.04.1971; being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellant Authority (RAA), which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.03.1973.

2.2. Against the said judgment, a second appeal was preferred under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was allowed vide the judgment dated 02.08.1974, while quashing and setting aside the orders dated 30.04.1971 & 30.03.1973 and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected, while restoring the land in question in the name of Thakurji Laxmi Narayan Ji (Deity).

2.3 Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2428/1974) before this Hon’ble Court, which was partly allowed on 17.08.1983, and judgment dated 02.08.1974 was quashed and set-aside, while remanding the matter back to the learned BoR for fresh consideration.

2.4 Thereafter, the learned BoR after hearing all the parties again allowed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 01.11.1988, while observing that the possession of the land in question shall be handed over to the Pujaris, after dispossessing the petitioner therefrom.

3. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja and Mr. Pramveer Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the name of Guman and Manna (petitioner’s vendors) mentioned in the revenue records right from Samvat Year 2002, and they were in cultivatory possession at the time of resumption of muafi land, and after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they became khatedars of the land.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned BoR had wrongly concluded that the land in question was cultivated by the Temple itself through Pujaris. It was also submitted that no part of the land was khudkasht and the Idol retained no rights in respect of the land, after the resumption of maufi rights; thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is highly illegal.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Deity has no locus-standi to file any application or suit as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was also submitted that the name of Guman and Manna (petitioner’s vendors) were mentioned in the record as Shikmis or sub-tenants, but the learned BoR ignoring the record and material available passed the impugned order without any cogent reason, which is not justified in l