Temple land is considered perpetual property and cannot be recorded in the name of a priest, affirming the temple's ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji, village Pal, Tehsil and District Jodhpur through Shri Sukha Ram son of Purkha Ram, resident of Thoriyo-ki-Dhani, Pal, Tehsil and District, Jodhpur claiming himself as devotee-cum-priest with the following reliefs:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

? That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-20) Passed by Tehsildar, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and further the application (Annexure-18) filed by the respondents, may kindly be rejected.

? That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the entry of the Jamabandi (Anexure-21) may kindly be directed to restore in the name of petitioner temple Shri Thakur Ji village Pal, Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be directed to enter the name of the Doli Banam Temple Shri Thakur Ji in land of village Pal, Khasara No. 93 and 93/1 rakba 81.13 Bigha and Khasra no. 4 Rakba 22 Bigha, 13 Biswa.

? That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 01.04.2012 (Annexure-16) Passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur may kindly be declare highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Act of 1955 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

? That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of Khasra No.93 of village Pal measuring about 81 Bighas and 13 Bishwas was recorded in the name of the petitioner prior to the settlement proceedings, however, later on, the priest of the petitioner-temple got himself recorded as Khatedar of the land and thereafter sold it to various other persons. It is submitted that later on as per the order passed by the State Government, the land in question was again recorded in the name of petitioner-temple and the said order came to be challenged by aggrieved persons before this Court, however, this Court in the said proceedings remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved persons.

3. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur vide order dated 09.12.2004 held that the land of Khasra No.93 of village Pal measuring 81 Bighas and 13 Biswas belongs to temple and it was wrongly recorded in the name of priest of the temple. The Tehsildar also held that the sale-deeds executed by the priest of the temple in favour of individuals are void ab initio and after relying on the orders passed by the Devasthan Department and the District Collector has held that the land in question be recorded in the name of temple. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner-temple in the revenue record.

4. It is submitted that against the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, an appeal was preferred on behalf of erstwhile Khatedars, which came to be dismissed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide order dated 01.06.2005. It is argued that the order dated 01.06.2005 has attained finality as the same has not yet been challenged by the erstwhile Khatedars.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Shyam Bothra filed an appeal against the order dated 09.12.2004 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur in the year 2012. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 10.04.2012 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order dated 10.04.2012, the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, the Board of Revenue also rejected the said appeal vide order dated 04.03.2014, against which, the State of Rajasthan has preferred a writ