Honble ISRANI, J.—The above mentioned writ petitions are decided by one single order, since same points of law have been raised in each of the writ petitions.

(2) So far as the ten writ petitions filed against the judgment dated April 23,1991, passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, are concerned, the facts of Writ Petition No. 3059 of 1991 (Birdha vs. Board of Revenue & Others) are mentioned hereunder: It has been stated that on behalf of respondent No.4, temple of idol of Shri Srinathji/Goverdhan Nathji, situated at Nathdwara, District Udaipur city, a suit was filed, regarding land comprised in Khasra No.9, situated in Village Kankara, Tehsil Pipalda, which stood in "muafi" and "khudkasht" of the said idol. It was stated in the plaint that, on the date of resumption, the above mentioned land was entered as khudkast"land in the settlement record and the said idols of Shri Srinathji/Goverdhanji have become khatedar tenant of the same. It was further stated in the plaint that the idol was a perpetual minor and that the petitioner and others could not acquire khatedari rights in the lands of the idol. The Revenue Officers had unauthorisedly and without giving any information to respondent No.4, entered the name of the petitioner as khatedar tenant of the lands comprised in Khasra No.9, measuring 14 Bighas and 16 Biswas, which was illegal and ineffective against the respondent No.4, as nobody was entitled to get rights in the lands of idol. It was also stated that the petitioner is in possession of the land as trespasser and is not giving up the possession. The petitioner contended in the written statement that respondent No.4 had no right to file the suit. It was further contended that respondent No.4 was not holding disputed land in his khudkast", nor was he in possession of the same, at the time of resumption of the muafi. At that time, the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land from the times of ancestors. It was also contended that respondent No.4 never remained Khatedar tenant of the disputed land. The petitioner-defendant and his ancestors have remained in possession of the disputed land for more than 20 years as owners and their title have already perfected by adverse possession. The suit, filed by respondent No.4, was dismissed vide order dated March 29, 1986, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota. However, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated June 2, 1988. The petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide Anx. 5 dated April 23, 1991.

The other three writ petitions have been filed against the judgment dated January 12, 1989, (Anx. 4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Therefore, the facts of Writ Petition No. 1381 of 1989 (Rampratap and another vs. Board of Revenue and others) are stated as under: A suit was filed on behalf of Murti Shri Bare Mathreshji, situated at Kota, with regard to agricultural land, bearing Khasra nos. 47, 49, 53,55, 167 and 643, measuring 58 Bighas and 4 Biswas, situated in village Nareda, Tehsil Baran. It was stated in the plaint that idol, being perpetual minor, became khatedar by virtue of Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for brevity, the Act, 1952), therefore, these lands should be deemed to be khudkast" of the idol, even though not cultivated personally by idol and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was not servant of respondent No.2, but was paying rent for cultivation to the idol. It was further stated that the petitioner defendant stopped paying rent after May, 1979 and started paying land revenue to the State Government and, therefore, became trespasser and was liable to be evicted. In the written statement, the petitioner-defendants contended that the lands were cultivated by them under their individual rights and not on behalf of respondent No.4. It was also stated that the disputed lands c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document