Honble CHAUHAN, J. – The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1997, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 375/88.

(2). The land in question originally belonged to the temple, known as `AsanMath Sthan Deva and by two regisered sale deeds, dated 7.2.1962 and 17.6.1964, the land measuring 24 bighas was transferred to one Narain Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, by Pujari of the temple Shri Rameshwar Puri, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4, for considerations. On the basis of the said sale deeds, Sarpanch of the village Panchayat passed the mutation orders on 30.1.1963and 12.12.1964 and since then the appellants claim that they are in physical and actual cultivatory possession over the said land.

(3). On the complaint of some resident of the village, the District Collector made a reference on 8.9.1983 to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the said mutations dated 30.1.1963 and 12.12.1964, the said reference order is contained inAnnex. 1 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 accepted the reference by judgment and order dated 14.3.1986 contained in Annex. 2, against which applications for clarification and review had also been rejected by the respondent No. 2 by orders dated 10.8.1987 and 19.10.1987, contained in Annxs. 3 and 4 to the petition respectively.

(4). Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the appellants, claiming to be the legal heirs of Shri Narain Singh, filed the writ petition before this Court, as by that time, Shri Narain Singh had died.

(5). As the appellants could not find any favour before the learned Single Judge and the said writ petition has been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment and orderdated 9.9.1997, the instant appeal has been filed.

(6). Heard Shri Sudesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.

(7). It is urged by Shri Gupta that the land in dispute belongs to `math and not to the `temple and therefore, the provisions of Sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter called `the Act) are not applicable at all and he further submi-tted that none of the courts/authority below considered this aspect though this issue could have tilted the balance in favour of the appellants. From the pleadings in the court or authority below, he could not point out as to on what basis it was the property of the `math and not of the `temple. Even in the memo of appeal, the appellants have not mentioned who was the `gaddinashin of the `math and reference has been made though out to Shri Rameshwar Puri, pujari of the temple. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law that `Pujari has no role to play in `math and it is always headed by the `gaddinashin. As the appellants had not raised this point below, they cannot be permitted to raise this issue first time beforethis Court in writ/appeal, as, it involves the issues of facts, which would require investigation and inquiry in the matter. It is settled law that the a party cannot be permitted to take a new plea first time in the Writ Court, which requires investigation of facts.

(8). In Ratanlal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (1), the Apex Court has obser-ved as under :

``All point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative authority may not be allowed to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when the interference in the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary is not of-course a must

(9). The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. & Anr. (2), A. M. Allison vs. State of Assam (3), Cantonment Board Ambala vs. Pyarelal (4), State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (5), Banwarlal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (6) and Rajeshwari Amma vs. Joseph (7).

(10). Shri Gupta has further urged that the reference was made after a lapseof 21 years and thus, the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue is void, being ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document