IMPORTANT POINT
Tenants cultivating land for deities do not acquire Khatedari rights unless they have a direct relationship with the state, as clarified by the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 and the full Bench judgment in Tara & Ors.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 01.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in the petition filed by the appellant, whereby, the learned Single Judge has upheld the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer in the matter of dispute relating to appellant’s status qua the land in dispute.

2. Facts of the case stated briefly and succinctly, being relevant for adjudication, are that a parcel of land bearing Khasra nos.2255, 2256, 2259 and 2260 (Old khasras no.472 and 473) situated in village Narlai, Tehsil Desuri, district Pali was recorded in the name of the appellant as Khatedar (tenant). The Sub-Divisional Officer, however, passed an order on 30.11.1987 directing the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of Doli Banam Mandir Charbhujaji by striking off the name of the appellant. This order adversely affected the recorded tenancy rights of the appellant and, therefore, he preferred a revenue appeal. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 24.06.1993. Though the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer directing the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of Mandir was upheld, however, it was held that if the appellant is to be dispossessed, appropriate remedy will have to be taken before the competent Court. Thereafter, the appellant preferred second appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.1998 and the review against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2001. The appellant, thereafter, filed petition before this Court which also came to be dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, carried out correction in the revenue entries by striking out his name as Khatedar and directing the name of Doli Banam Mandir Charbhujaji to be entered in the revenue records. He would submit that this order entailed serious civil consequences and otherwise also the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act required the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue notice, hold an enquiry and then only pass an order, which was not complied with.

4. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant was cultivating the land as a tenant, which is not a disputed factual position, therefore, the legal consequences flowing after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 would be that the appellant would acquire tenancy rights and will become Khatedar. He would submit that it was in accordance with this legal position that the legal status of Khatedar was recorded by making necessary entries in the revenue records. He would submit that even before coming into force of the Act of 1952, the appellant was cultivating the land as a tenant and, therefore, in view of the decision of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2015(3) WLC (Raj.) 548], the appellant acquired tenancy rights and became Khatedar. He would further submit that had a proper opportunity been given, he would have satisfied the Sub-Divisional Officer. He would further submit that though revenue appeal was preferred by him firstly before the Revenue Appellate Authority and, thereafter, before the Board of Revenue, this aspect was not gone into. Further, the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated this aspect of the matter. His submission is that the revenue Courts as well as learned Single Judge have misdirected themselves in not approaching the issue in the light of the decision rendered by the full Bench of this Court and have proceeded on an erroneous assumption of law that the deity, even if it is not continuing as Jagirdar, would continue as Khatedar irrespective of whether or not the land was being cultivated by a tenant, not being Shebait/Pujari or any hired labour or servant engaged by them for the benefit of the expenses of the templ