JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition or in any other appropriate form may kindly be issued quashing the impugned judgments Annex.3 to 6 passed by the courts below.

Any other relief favourable to the petitioners may kindly be granted.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that a land - mutation (Khatoni) no. 177 total 13 Rakba 27 bighas 11 bishwa - situated at Village Khardevla, Tehsil Badi Sadari, District Chhitorgarh was recorded in the name of Shri Satya Narayan Bhagwan (Deity) through its Pujari Shankar Lal and the said land in question is under cultivatory possession of the petitioners, since the time of their father and grandfather.

2.1 Thereafter, the respondent no. 4-Pujari Shankar Lal instituted a suit in the name of Shri Satya Narayan Bhagwan (Deity) against the petitioners before the Assistant Collector, Nimbahada, seeking dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question; the learned Assistant Collector vide the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1978 ordered dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question.

2.2 Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 31.08.1978, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate (RAA), Udaipur, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 30.12.1985. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.1992. The petitioner filed a review petition before the learned BoR, but that too was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.10.1993. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit in question instituted by the respondent no. 4-Pujari Shankar Lal was not maintainable, after resumption of the muafi land of Shri Satyanarayan Bhagwan (Deity), especially when the land in question was not a khudkasht land of the respondent no. 4-Pujari Shankar Lal.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled law that on resumption of Jagirs or Muafi land, the Deity becomes khatedar tenant, only if it is its khudkast land; if tenant utilizes the land for cultivatory purposes, then the tenant becomes khatedar. As per learned counsel, in the present case, the petitioners were cultivating the land at the time of resumption of the land in question and they did pay the rent till the resumption of the same to the Deity.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners raised all issues regarding their khatedari rights in their written statement, but the learned revenue authorities below, without considering the facts and material placed on record before them, passed the impugned orders, which are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners never had any khatedari right over the land in question, as the land in question became khatedari land of the Deity; therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders are justified in law.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were cultivators of the land for and on behalf of the Deity and the names of the petitioners were wrongly entered in the revenue records, which were subsequently cancelled/deleted from the records, and the land in question was recorded in the name of the Deity.

4.2. It was also submitted that no khatedari rights accrue in favour of the petitioners, and thus, the learned revenue authorities below had not committed any er