Honble Purohit, M.—The applicants have filed this review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court while sitting in Single Bench dated 18.1.2006, by which reference No.13/97/TA/Sriganganagar (Case ID No.2368/97) State vs. Gangu Bai (Deceased) through legal representatives was accepted.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants has advanced the same arguments which were advanced by him while arguing the reference application. These arguments have already been considered and decided by this Court while deciding the reference.

3. The reference of the State Government was accepted on the ground that the present applicant failed to prove that the disputed land was given to the husband of Gangu Bai, Ratan Singh in lieu of his services as a Village-Servant. On the contrary from the record, it has been proved that the disputed land was recorded as a maufi land of Gurudwara and on such muafi lands of Gurudwara, no khatedari rights accrued to Ratan singh. While deciding the reference, inadvertently while referring the judgment of Honble Rajasthan High Court Ratan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1983 WLN (UC), page number was not written. It is page number 1 (one) of that case.

4. While arguing this reference, at initial stage, the counsel of the applicants tried to convince this Court that the Honble High Court in a judgment (supra) reported in 1983 WLN (UC) page 1, has accepted that the khatedari rights to Ratan Singh were given u/S. 193 of the R.T. Act, but when this judgment Ratan Singh vs. State of Raj. 1983 WLN (UC) page 1) was perused vis-a-vis the facts of the present case, then it became crystal clear that the so-called Ratan Singh who was the petitioner in the Rajasthan High Court judgment and Ratan Singh-the husband of Gangu Bai are quite different entity. In the judgment of the reference of 18.1.2006, this Court has in detail examined and mentioned the reasons and facts showing that these two Ratan Singhs are different persons and the counsel for the applicants also ultimately agreed that these two Ratan Singhs are different persons. While deciding the reference, this Court has also considered the judgment of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 287/93 Swarnajeet Singh vs. State, copy of which was submitted before us but the principles laid down in that case are not applicable in the present case because in that case, the khatedari rights were given u/S. 193 of the Act. Whereas in the present case, the land was recorded as a muafi land of Gurudwara and the present applicant filed a suit u/S. 88 of the RT Act before the trial Court for declaration of the khatedari rights and the trial Court decreed the suit on 30.12.80 in violation of the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well as the various pronouncements of the Board and the Honble High Court wherein it has been held that on muafi land of Mandir and Gurudwaras, no person can become the khatedari-tenant.

5. Section 16 of the Act expressly prohibits the khatedari rights on the land held for public purpose or work of public utility. In 1984 RRD 1, LB of the Board held that public properties endowed to the idol are entirely for public purpose. Though in judgment of Shiv Ram Chela vs. Mishu reported in 1986 RRD 238 (DB), the division bench of the Board dissented from the LB judgment i.e. 1984 RRD 1 (LB) and again asked for a reference to larger bench and larger bench consisting of five Members was constituted and in the cause of Shiv Ram Chela vs. Mishru, LB (of five Members) relied on 1957 SC 133 and upheld the view taken in 1984 RRD 1 (LB).

6. In compliance of the decree dated 30.12.80, a mutation No. 106 was also sanctioned and a reference was made before this Court to set aside the trial Courts judgment as well as this mutation. This Court while deciding the reference has discussed in detail the reasons for accepting the reference and setting aside the decree dated 30.12.80 in mutation No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document