Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.94 in Appeal No. 6/89 by which the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 15.12.88 in Appeal No. 251/88.

(2). The facts of the case as revealed by the record of the case are that in the Revenue Record particularly, relating to settlement of Samwat 2009 the land in dispute measuring 256 bighas and 15 biswas was shown in the name of Temple Shri Thakurji, the present petitioner, and one Shri Mangha Ram son of Nand Ram, predecessor in interest of respondents No.4 to 7, was shown as the Pujari and care taker of petitioner temple and was looking after the land in dispute, as is evident from Ex.1, issued on 21st June 1945. It is also revealed from the said Ex.1 that Shri Mangha Ram had made a statement before the Competent Authority on 24th Feb. 1945, that the said Temple of Shri Thakurji was very old and the land in dispute was the property of the petitioner temple and being Pujari of the temple he was looking after the said land. It appears that Mangha Ram, pujari had manipulated Revenue Record and was shown subsequently as khatedar of the land in dispute. After his death, respondents No.4 to 7, inherited the land and they executed the sale deed of the said land in favour of the respondent No.2 and 3 on 19.6.1967 and 5.6.72. On behalf of the petitioner, a case was filed before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, Respondent No.10, being case No.75/83 which was decided vide order dated 16th August 1988 contained in Ex.2 to this writ petition. Relying upon the order dated 27th May 1967 passed by Addl. Collector treated the land in dispute as personal land of said Shri Mangha Ram. However, it is also relevant to mention that respondent No.10 has observed in the aforesaid order that in the settlement record of Samwat 2001 i.e. 1954 the land was shown in the name of the temple and it was cultivated by Shri Mangha Ram being pujari of the temple and it was also shown in Samwat 2030-2033 in the name of the temple. However, the learned Additional Collector held that the transfer made in favour of the petitioner No.2 and 3 by the respondent No.4 to 7 was valid as respondents 4 to 7, being successors of ManghaRam inherited khatedari rights, which had been acquired by Sri Mangha Ram Pujari.

(3). Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the present petitioner filed the Appeal No. 251/88 before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dated 15.12.88 contained in Ex.3 holding that there could have been no justification for passing impugned order dated 16.8.88 for the reason that the Land Settlement Officer, Bikaner, vide his order dated 21.6.73 recorded the petitioner temple as khatedar of the land in dispute. There had been dispute regarding settlement in Samwat 2043 in respect of the said land and it was decided in favour of the petitioner temple and if khatedari right was recorded in the name of the petitioner temple in 1945 and it was continuing, Mangha Ram, being pujari of the temple could not have acquired khatedari rights at all. For giving such a decision, the Revenue Appellate Authority held that deity being perpetual minor was incapable to look after its property and the pujari was looking after the same and being a care taker he could not have acquired any right or interest in the said property. Therefore,acquisition of khatedari rights in the land in dispute by Mangha Ram Pujari and trans- fer of the same subsequently, in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 by respondents No.4 to 7 could not be justified by any means. Transfer in favour of respondent No.2 and 3 was contrary to law and thus, the appeal of the present petitioner was allowed.

(4). Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied the respondent No.2 filed the appeal be- fore the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the Board vide order dated 10.6.94 contained in Ex.4. Board of Revenue held that the case before the Asstt. Colle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document