Land recorded as khudkasht land in the name of the Temple belongs to the deity, and the pujari/shebait cannot acquire such land.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 2000, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

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

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order ANNEXURE P/8 dated May 12, 1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the non-petitioners may kindly be directed not to make any change in the revenue records during the pendency of the writ petition;

iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction grant any other relief, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) The costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that original petitioner-Panna (since deceased represented through his LRs herein) purchased the land bearing khasra nos.349/2, 350/2, 351/2 and 352/2 total 4 bighas and 11 biswas from one Chhoga S/o Manaji Jat through a registered sale deed on 19.08.1972. The land in question was earlier sold to Chhoga S/o Manaji Jat by one Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu through a registered sale deed on 04.08.1972.

2.1. The new khasra nos.871, 873, and 878, upon being generated in respect of the land in question, new khasra nos. 871 and 878 were recorded in the name of Gangadass, and new khasra nos. 873 old khasra nos. 349/1, 349/2 were recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple). The original petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhilwara for recording his name in the revenue record as per the sale deed pertaining to the aforesaid land. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer on 24.04.1974 passed an order, while finding that the new khasra no. 873 (old khasra nos. 349/1, 349/2) was recorded in the name of the original petitioner and new khasra no. 878 was recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple).

2.2. The original petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for making the necessary entry and recording his name in relation to new Khasra nos. 871 and 878 in the revenue record and further stated that the said new khasras was made of old khasra nos. 349/1 and 349/2.

2.3. Thereafter, the Additional Collector, Bhilwara submitted the case before the Director of Land Records, whereupon the Director of Land Records made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer on 24.09.1998 against the order dated 24.04.1974. The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 12.05.1999 accepted the said reference and the land i.e new Khasra no. 873 was ordered to be recorded in the name of Thakur Ji Raghunath Ji (Temple), while cancelling the khatedari rights of the original petitioner in respect of the land in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Assistant Settlement Officer sent the matter to the Bhumapak for making measurement of the land in question, but the learned BoR without considering the said aspect of the case passed the impugned order.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the new khasra no. 873 was made of old khasra nos.349/1 and 349/2 and the Temple had no right over the said khasra, but despite the same, the learned BoR passed the impugned order which is not justified in law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2024 to 2027, the name of Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu was recorded as khadamdar and having a better status under the Mewar Revenue Rules than the Khatedar, and thereafter, Gangadass Guru Haridass Sadhu sold the land to Chhoga and he further sold the same to the original petitioner; thus, the recording of the land in question in the name of the Temple