Rajasthan High Court Upholds Temple's Land Rights in Long-Standing Dispute

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2981/1990) challenging the restoration of land to the Shri Gopalji Temple in Village Papurana. Justice Avneesh Jhingan 's judgment hinged on the interpretation of Sections 19 and 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act , 1955, and the legal status of a deity as a perpetual minor.

Case Overview

The petitioners, Roodaram & Ors., claimed khatedari rights to the land based on long-standing cultivation. They argued that the land had been erroneously registered in the temple's name. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, however, after a reference from the Collector, reinstated the land's registration in the temple's name based on historical revenue records. The petitioners challenged this decision.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners contended that their ancestors had possessed the land long before the enactment of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act , 1955, and that the reference for correction was unduly delayed, exceeding thirteen years. They argued that the delay alone warranted dismissal.

The respondent, representing the Board of Revenue and the temple, countered that the land had always belonged to the temple, as evidenced by revenue records. They asserted that the entry in favor of the petitioners' ancestors in the Jamabandi for Samwat 2026-29 was erroneous and made without proper authority.

Legal Precedents and Reasoning

The court's decision turned on the interpretation of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act , 1955, which deals with conferring khatedari rights. The court emphasized Section 19(1)'s proviso, specifically clause (i), which prevents conferring khatedari rights on land held by individuals listed in Section 46. This section includes minors. The court cited several Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court precedents establishing the legal principle that a Hindu deity is considered a perpetual minor.

The judgment extensively quoted * Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust Vs. Balakrishna Bhat and Ors. * (2019) 9 SCC 495 , emphasizing that a deity is a deemed minor and transactions on its behalf are conducted by its guardian or trustee. The court also relied upon Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008) 3 RLR 632 and * Partap Ram Versus State of Rajasthan * 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 975 to further support this legal principle.

The court also addressed the petitioners' argument concerning the delay in the reference. Relying on * Chhail Singh And Ors. vs. State of Raj. and Ors* 2008 SCC OnLine Raj. 843 , the court held that while references should be made within a reasonable time, Section 82 of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956, prescribes no specific limitation period. Given the circumstances, including the deity's status as a perpetual minor and the erroneous nature of the previous entry, the court deemed the delay reasonable.

Court's Decision and Implications

The court found no legal error in the Board of Revenue's decision to restore the land to the temple. It ruled that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of khatedari rights. The court emphasized the protection afforded to the deity's property under the law. The writ petition was dismissed. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the legal protections afforded to the properties of deities and the importance of adhering to established procedures in land record maintenance.