Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 672
[Citation : RLW 2006(2) RJ 785]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
State of Raj. Vs. Chhogaram & ors. (Khan, M.)
HON'BLE M.S. KHAN, MEMBER
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Chhogaram & Ors.
Reference/L.R./546/01/Nagore, decided on 7th March, 2006
Ramjan Mohmmad, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for Petitioner;
Madan Lal Gurjar, Advocate, for Non-petitioner
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 46; Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 3 — Transfer of temple land — The priest got the land transferred in his favour — Legality — Held — Temple deity is perpetual minor — The priest/manager of the land is entitled merely to look after its land as a trustee — Its transfer in favour of any other person being against the provisions of Sec. 46 is null and void — The order void ab initio could be set aside at anytime — No question of limitation involve. (Paras 7 to 9)
Reference allowed.
.
2- la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd rglhynkj ykMuw us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; essa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k fd xzke ckysM+k d xr [kljk uEcj 8 ,oa 12 ftuds gky [kljk uEcj 16 jdck 20 ch?kk 8 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 22 jdck 18 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 23 jdck 46 ch?kk 10 fcLok [kljk uEcj 15 jdck 40 ch?kk 10 fcLok [kljk uEcj 24 jdck 37 ch?kk 1 fcLok Hkwfe laor~ 2006 esa Mksyh cuke~ eB Jh kadj th okds ckdfy;k c,reke NksVwiqjh psyk dkywiqfj dkSe Lokeh lkfdu ckdfy;k dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ FkhA orZeku esa ;g Hkwfe lsfVyesaV }kjk vizkFkhZx.k ds uke ntZ gSA eafnj ,d LFkkbZ ukckfyx gSA LFkkbZ ukckfyx dh lEifr dk eSustj vFkok iqtkjh VªLVh ds :i esa ek= ns[kHkky djus dk vf/kdkjh gksrk gSA Hkwfe gLrkUrj.k djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj mUgsa izkIr ugha gSA vr% mDr Hkwfe okil eafnj dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ dh tkosA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us i{kdkjku dks lqudj fooknxzLr vkjkth okil ewfrZ eafnj ds uke ntZ djus gsrq ;g jsQjsal e.My dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA
3- mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl lquh xbZA
4- izkFkhZ jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls mi jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd us viuh cgl esa crk;k fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe ewfrZ eafnj ,oa lkoZtfud mi;ksx dh gSA vr% mUgksaus bl Hkwfe dks iqu% ewfrZ eafnj ds uke ntZ djs dh izkFkZuk dhA vius i{k ds leFkZu esa vkj-vkj-Mh- 1994 ist 1] vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 ist 411 ,oa ttesaV VwMs ekpZ 2004 ,llh ikVZ 1 esa izdkfkr fu.kZ; i`Foh yky cuke~ cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w ,.M vnlZ dh uthjsa isk dhA
5- vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us viuh cgl esa crk;k fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe tkxhj ds xkao dh Fkh tkxhj fjT;we gksus ds ckn mDr Hkwfe dk vizkFkhZx.k dks ckbZ vkizsku vkWQ yk [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku fd;s x;s gS] tks lgh gSA jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls ;g jsQjsal vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vius i{k ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkj-vkj-Mh- 2005 ist 713] 669] 742] 368] vkj-ch-ts- 2003 ist 297] 598] 600 dh uthjsa isk dhA
6- geusa mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
7- vfrfjDr dysDVj us vius jsQjsal fu.kZ; esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd lEor~ 2006 ds [kkrk la[;k 53 ds vuqlkj Mksyh cuke~ eB Jh kadj th okds ckdfy;k c,reke NksVwiqjh psyk dkywiqjh dkSe xksLokeh ckdfy;k ntZ gS] tks [kqndkr vafdr gSA vizkFkhZx.kksa ds uke tks Hkwfe orZeku esa gS og lEor~ 2006 esa eB dh Hkwfe FkhA eafnj eB dh Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k cspku U;k;ky; }kjk fMdzh ,oa Hkw izca/k foHkkx }kjk tkjh ipsZ ds }kjk fdlh vU; ds uke [kkrsnkjh ugha gks ldrh] tks kwU; ,oa voS/k gSA D;ksafd eafnj ,d LFkkbZ ukckfyx gSA LFkkbZ ukckfyx dh lEifr dk eSustj vFkok iqtkjh] VªLVh ds :i esa ek= ns[kHkky djus dk vf/kdkjh gksrk gS u fd gLrkUrj.k dkA ge vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ds mDr fu"d"kZ ls lger gSA
8- ewfrZ eafnj lrr~ vo;Ld gS ftldh Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k /kkjk 46 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gSA tSlk fd vkj-vkj-Mh- 1994 ist 1 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; dks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ttesaV VwMs ekpZ 2004 ,llh ikVZ 1 esa izdkfkr fu.kZ; i`Fohyky cuke cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w ,.M vnlZ ds dsl esa vigsYM fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fuEu izdkj ls gS%&
Having heard learned counsel of the parties on either side, we are satisfied that the common impugned order which is under challenge in these appeals, does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. The High Court has elaborately considered the respective contentions looking to the facts and also the record as well as the position of law. In the view, it is unnecessary to us to support them again at we agree with the conclusions recorded by the High Court.
tgkW rd jsQjsal foyEc ls izLrqr djus dk izu gS] bl lEca/k esa vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 ist 411 esa dgk x;k gS fd&
Limitation Act, Sec. 3 — Entries regarding title changed by Asstt. Land Records Officer on the basis of application by opposite party though during settlement operations existing entries can be changed only in accordance with decree, judgment of competent Court, legal transfer d
