The main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 2001, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”. However, despite the same, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-State claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that :

a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgments dated 16.7.98 and 19.7.2000 (Annexure 2 and 3) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 30.3.98 (Annexure 1) referring the reference may kindly be allowed;

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction it be declared that the Doli land cannot be declared in the name of Pujari and the same be entered as Doli land;

d) any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner State;

e) Costs be allowed to the petitioner.”

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the bone of contention in the present case is a land comprising old khasra nos.803, 804, 805, 806, 801 & 802 (new khasra nos.951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956 & 957), measuring in total 7.20 hectares, situated in Village Basna, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali. The said land, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat 2016-2019, was recorded in muafi of Doli Banam Mandir Shri Raghunathji of Sojat (in short, ‘Temple’). However, the Pujaris of the Temple in an illegal and unauthorized manner got the land in question recorded, in the revenue records, as their khatedari land, and thereafter, sold and transferred the same to the respondents herein, which was accordingly recorded and mutated in the revenue records in their favour.

3.1. Subsequently, the Tehsildar, Sojat preferred an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, while bringing the aforementioned factual matrix, before the learned Additional District Collector, Pali, with a prayer that since the land in question was a muafi of the Temple, the revenue entry made in favour of the respondents may be cancelled and the land in question may be recorded in the name of the Temple in the revenue records.

3.2. The learned Additional District Collector made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide order dated 30.03.1998, with a direction to the respondents to appear before the learned BoR on 24.06.1998.

3.3. The learned BoR however, vide the impugned order dated 16.07.1998 rejected the said reference, while observing, amongst others, that as per the Jamabandis of Samwat 2016-2019 & 2021-2024, one Late Sukaram (father of the respondents) was the recorded khatedar of the land in question since the very beginning, and the Temple was the land-holder, and thus, Late Sukaram was having a definite relationship of tenant with the Temple. It was also observed that after abolition of muafi, owing to such relationship, the tenant shall have the right to be declared as khatedar.

3.3.1. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner-State has preferred a review petition before the learned BoR, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2000. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

4. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the impugned orders were passed by the learned BoR, while not taking into due consideration, the vital aspect of the matter that as per the Jamabandi of Samwat 2016-19, the land in question was a Deity land.

4.1. He further submits that since the Deity is a perpetual minor in respect of the properties held by it, no right, title or interest can accrue in favor of any transferee, under any circumstances whatsoever, therefore, the learned BoR ought to have accepted the reference made by the learned Additional District Collector, on the application so preferr