Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Doli Mandir Shri Pabuji vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer on 2 September, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3589/2023

Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj, Village Sangariya, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur Through Devotee Khem Singh Son Of Ganpat Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Shikarpura, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

2. District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. Tehsildar, Luni, District Jodhpur

4. Girdhari Singh S/o Prem Singh @ Pema Ram Purohit, Resident Of Village Sangriya, Tehsil And District Jodhpur, Presently Residing At Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

5. Rakesh Kumar Jhawar S/o Shri Shayam Sunder Jhawar, By Caste Maheshwari, Resident Of Village Bissalpur, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3526/2023 Doli Mandir Shri Pabuji, Village Sangaria, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur Through Devotee Khem Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Shikarpura, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

2. District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. Tehsildar, Luni, District Jodhpur.

4. Sohan Singh S/o Prem Singh @ Pema Ram, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Sangaria, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur Presently Residing At Village Kudi, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

5. Bhagwati Prasad S/o Amrit Lal Bang, Behind The Bsnl Office, Manji Ka Hatta, Paota, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

6. Smt. Bhawna Surana W/o Sanjay Surana, First C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3527/2023 Doli (Deity) Shri Pabuji Maharaj, Village Sangariya, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur Through Devotee Khem Singh Son Of Ganpat

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Shikarpura, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

2. District Collector, Jodhpur.

3. Tehsildar, Luni, District Jodhpur.

4. Mohan Kanwar W/o Pokar Singh, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

5. Balu Singh S/o Pokar Singh, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

6. Malu Singh S/o Pokar Singh, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

7. Madan Singh S/o Pokar Singh, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

8. Gajender Singh S/o Pokar Singh, By Caste Purohit, Resident Of Village Kudi-Gav, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

9. Bhagwati Prasad S/o Amrit Lal Bang, Resident Of Behind The Bsnl Office, Manji Ka Hatta Paota, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

                                                                                 ----Respondents



    For Petitioner(s)                 :     Mr. Moti Singh
    For Respondent(s)                 :     Mr. R.D. Bhadu, Dy.GC.
                                            Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
                                            assisted by Mr. B.S. Sandhu,
                                            Mr. Dinesh Godara, &
                                            Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on 27/07/2023 Pronounced on 02/09/2023

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy,

though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts

and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3589/2023, while treating the same as a

lead case.

2. The prayer clauses read as under:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

● That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure-36) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in appeal no.7169/2017 titled as State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar v. Girdhari Singh, and order dated 23.04.2014 passed by Sub-Division Officer, Jodhpur in application No.82/2013 (Annexure-16) titled as "Girdhari Singh v. State of Rajasthan" as also the order dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-17) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur in appeal No.18/2015 "State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Singh", may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act may kindly be dismissed. ● By an appropriate order or direction may kindly be issued and respondent-Tehsildar, Jodhpur may direct to restore the entry of the name of deity as "Doli Banam Shri Pabuji Maharaj" in revenue record of Khasra No.296 rakba 113 bigha 9 biswa (including the Sub-Division No.296/1, 296/2 etc.) of Village Sangariya, Tehsil Kudi, District Jodhpur.

● That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintained the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that a land comprising Khasra

No.296 (Rakba 113 Bighas 9 Biswa) was entered as a khudkasht

land of petitioner-Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj, and the mutation entry

was made in the name of Priest, namely, Shri Pema Ram,

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

whereafter, the land was managed by him; after the death of

Priest-Pema Ram, the mutation, in respect of the land in question,

was entered in the name of his legal heirs (sons).

3.1. In the year 1991, the Revenue Department had issued a

circular dated 13.12.1991, whereby a direction was issued to the

Collectors of all the Districts, to the effect that in relation to any

Doli land, the name of the Priest of any Temple, shall not be

entered in the revenue records, with a further direction to delete

the names of the Priests, whose names have already been entered

in the mutation (revenue records). The respondent-State vide

order dated 29.10.1992, directed all the District Collectors to

organize a revenue camp for protecting the rights of Temple(s)

and their land(s). Thereafter, on 11.11.1992, the respondent no.2-

District Collector, directed the respondent no.3-Tehsildar to

prepare the records of all the lands belonging to the Temple(s) in

the Jodhpur District.

3.2. In the year 2003, the Devasthan Department had issued a

circular, directing all the District Collectors to delete all kinds of

entries, which were made due to transfer of the Deity lands, by

the Priest or any other person. On 27.03.2003, the respondent

no.2 directed the respondent no.3 to delete the entry of any kind

of transfer of the Deity land. Thereafter, the entry of the Priest's

name, in relation to the Deity land(s), was deleted by the Revenue

Department, and such land(s) was entered in the name of "Doli

Banam Pabuji Maharaj" in the jamabadi.

3.3. The private respondents and others filed an application under

Section 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

referred to as 'Act of 1956') before the learned Sub-Divisional

Officer (SDO), Jodhpur for correction of the entry in the revenue

records, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated

24.12.2012.

3.4. Against the said order, the private respondents preferred an

appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 before the learned

Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, which was dismissed, while

remanding the matter back to the learned SDO for fresh

consideration. Thereafter, the learned SDO under Section 136 of

the Act of 1956 registered the case (Revenue Misc. Case 82/13),

and allowed the application vide the impugned order dated

23.04.2014, and the private respondents were declared khatedar

tenants of the land in question, and accordingly, their names were

entered in the revenue record.

3.5. Thereafter, the Tehsildar preferred an appeal (registered as

Revenue Appeal No. 18/2015) against the aforesaid order dated

23.04.2014 before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur,

but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated

15.03.2017. The Tehsildar filed a second appeal (registered

Appeal/LR/7169/2017/Jodhpur) against the order dated

15.03.2017 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for

Rajasthan, Ajmer, which too was dismissed vide the impugned

order dated 01.02.2023.

3.6. The Tehsildar also filed a reference application on 11.12.2017

under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 before the District Collector,

Jodhpur, but same was dismissed on 28.6.2019, with liberty to file

fresh application, as the said application was suffering from

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(6 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

certain deficiencies. Thereafter, the Tehsildar filed a reference

application for restoration of the entry of Deity as recorded in the

settlement record, but the said application was dismissed on

15.12.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name

of juristic person, Deity Shri Pabuji Maharaj, which was recorded

as khatedar of the land was not impleaded as party in the entire

proceeding in question. The Temple in question is a private one

and not receiving any aid from the government, and therefore, the

impugned order, which was passed without impleading it as a

party, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the devotee-

petitioners filed various complaints against the impugned act of

revenue authorities in not supplying a copy of the proceeding in

question, and therefore the entire impugned action, which was

taken in absence of the necessary parties, including the present

petitioner, is not justified in law.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the entry of the name of

Deity in the revenue records was correct, as per the circular dated

13.12.1991 issued by the State Government, and therefore, the

same ought not be changed by the learned SDO under Section

136 of the Act of 1956.

4.3. It was further submitted that the learned authorities below

fell into grave error of law in passing the impugned orders, in

entertaining the application in question under Section 136 of the

Act of 1956 without impleading the Deity as a party in the

proceeding.

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(7 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned SDO in the

impugned order relied upon the circulars of the years 2007 &

2011, despite the fact that the said circulars cannot be applied

retrospectively. Therefore, the impugned order are not sustainable

in the eye of law.

4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the land was

recorded as a Khatedari land in the name of Shri Pabuji Maharaj

and it cannot be changed without impleading it as a party by the

learned SDO, and therefore, the impugned order suffers from

illegality and passed without jurisdiction and contrary to the

precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4.6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR Vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.

(2020) 1 SCC 1; and The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti & Anr. (Civil Appeal

No. 4850 of 2021, decided on 06.09.2021);

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in M. Siddiq

(Dead) Through LR (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-

"341.......In the above case, by entering into the compromise decree declaring the temple properties as personal properties of the defendant shebaits, the defendants set up a title contrary to the title of the idol itself. This Court held that it was hence permissible for the plaintiffs, who were worshippers, to maintain a suit invalidating the compromise decree." The significance of the distinction between suing on behalf of the deity and the institution of a suit in a personal capacity for the benefit of the deity will be adverted to shortly.

345. It is important to note that unlike in Vemareddi Reddy, this Court in Bishwanath permitted worshippers to sue on

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(8 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

behalf of the idol. The suit in Bishwanath was not instituted by a worshipper in their personal capacity, but rather as a representative of the idol to the exclusion of the shebait. The next friend stepped into the shoes of the shebait for the limited purpose of the litigation.

346. The position in law with respect to when a worshipper may institute proceedings is settled. A worshipper can institute a suit to protect the interests of the deity against a stranger where a shebait is negligent in its duties or takes actions that are hostile to the deity. The question whether the remedy available to the worshipper is a suit in a personal capacity or a suit on behalf of the idol (as next friend) is one which must be answered. The suit in Vemareddi Reddy was a suit filed by worshippers in their personal capacity and the court had no occasion to determine whether a suit by a next friend on behalf of the idol itself would be maintainable. However, given the express observations that a worshipper cannot exercise the deity's right to sue, this matter must be considered.

348. Where a shebait acts prejudicially to the deity's interests, there thus exist two views on the remedies available to the interested worshipper. The position taken by this Court in Bishwanath is that a worshipper can sue as a next friend on behalf of the deity. As next friend, the worshipper directly exercises the deity's right to sue. The alternative view taken by Justice Pal in Tarit Bhushan Rai and as observed by this Court in Vemareddi Reddy is that a worshipper can file a suit in a personal capacity to protect the deity's interests but cannot sue directly on behalf of the deity although the suit may be for the benefit of the deity. In this view, the deity is not bound by the suit of the worshippers unless the remedy provided is in rem in nature. The matter raises two questions: First, is a suit filed by a worshipper in a personal capacity a sufficient and expedient method to protect the interests of the deity? Second, does allowing a next friend to sue on behalf of the deity without establishing the bona fide intentions and qualifications of the next friend put the deity's interest at risk?

349. A suit by a worshipper in their personal capacity may be an appropriate remedy in certain cases. For example, where a

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(9 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

shebait denies worshippers access to the idol, a suit by the worshipper in a personal capacity to grant access to the idol may constitute a suitable remedy against the shebait. A further benefit of confining the suits of worshippers to suits filed in a personal capacity is that in cases concerning the recovery of property, a suit by a worshipper in a personal capacity does not raise the question as to whom the possession of the land would be given. However, where a suit is filed by a next friend on behalf of the deity itself, a problem arises: in a suit for the recovery of property on behalf of the idol, the court cannot deliver possession of the property to the next friend. The next friend is merely a temporary representative of the idol for the limited purposes of the individual litigation. Where a worshipper can only sue in their personal capacity, the question of the delivery of possession does not arise."

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in The State of

Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan Kalyan Samiti &

Ors. (Supra) is also reproduced as hereunder:-

"10. This Court further held that temple land does not fall in any of the excepted categories in Section 2(z-3), therefore, it was unoccupied land and set apart for a public purpose, i.e., for the upkeep of the temple......

20. This question has already been considered by the courts in Pancham Singh, which has further been affirmed by Kanchaniya. The Law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami. The Kanchaniya further clarifies that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(10 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

of a manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordi-nary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage.

27. In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well. In Ghanshyamdas II, it was held that if the name of the Pujari is recorded in the column No. 12 i.e. column of remarks, it will not affect the rights of the Pujari so long as he is performing his functions properly and cultivating the land or getting the land cultivated through servants. Therefore, the name of the Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remark's column".

4.7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel also relied

upon the following judgments:-

(a) Tara Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 185 of 2001

& Other Connected Matters), decided on 15.07.2015 by this

Hon'ble Court;

(b) Doli Mandir Shir Mahadev Ji Through Devotee Vs. State of

Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 396 of 2020 & Other Connected

Matters) decided on 04.11.2022 by this Hon'ble Court;

Appeal No. 1147 of 1997) decided on 07.11.1997 by this Hon'ble

Court; and

(d) Temple of Thakurji Village Kansar Vs The State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3897/1994) decided on

30.09.1997 by this Hon'ble Court.

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(11 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Mr. Dinesh Godara and

Mr.Jaideep Singh Saluja; Mr R.D. Bhadu, learned Deputy

Government Counsel; appearing on behalf of the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, submitted that the private respondents filed an

application under Section 136, which was rightly allowed, because

the entry was existing for last 54 years in the name of the private

respondents, after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land

Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and Rajasthan

Tenancy Act 1955.

5.1. It was further submitted that the order pertaining to

correction in the revenue record qua the name of the private

respondents was passed by the learned SDO, and the same was

thereafter, upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner and the

learned BoR.

5.2. It was also submitted that the private respondents' names

were recorded as khatedars in the revenue records, but the same

were removed without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice

as well as without any reference or judicial order, in the year

2006. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned

revenue authorities below are justified in law.

5.3. It was further submitted that the as per the jamabadis of

Samvat 2014-2017 (1957-1973), the private respondents were

the recorded khatedars and were cultivating the land as well as

paying lagaan, since settlement.

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(12 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

5.4. It was also submitted that the State Government, upon

realizing that the circular dated 31.12.1991 was wrongly

interpreted, the Government issued a circular dated 24.05.2007

wherein it was clearly stated that the names of khatedars have

been wrongly removed without any reference, and thus, the same

requires necessary correction under Section 136 of the Act of

1956; thereafter, a circular dated 25.11.2011 was issued, on the

basis of the circular dated 24.05.2007.

5.5. It was further submitted that the petitioner is showing

himself as the devotee but did not place any material to prove the

same, and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the

instant petitions. It was also submitted that the land in question

was recorded in the names of the private respondents 54 years

ago, and there are concurrent findings of the three learned

revenue authorities below, which do not call for any interference in

the instant petitions.

5.6. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the

following judgments:-

(a) Waryam Singh & Ors. Vs. Amarnath & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 215;

(b) Ouseph Mathai & Ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC

319;

423; by the Hon'ble Apex Court;

(d) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Legal Representatives of

deceased plaintiff Mani Ram & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2494/2015 &

Other connected matters) decided on 02.03.2022 by this Hon'ble

Court;

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(13 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

(f) Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B.C.W.P. No. 8621/2021) decided on 09.07.2021 by this

Hon'ble Court; and

(g) State of Rajasthan Vs Gulab & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.

17953/2016) decided on 21.01.2019 by this Hon'ble Court;

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

7. This Court observes that at the time of settlement, the land

in question was entered as a khudkasht land of the Doli Shri

Pabuji Maharaj, whereafter, it was managed by Priest-Pema Ram;

upon death of the said Priest, the land was entered in the name of

his legal heirs. Subsequently, the State Government issued the

aforementioned circulars, as per which, the name of Priest shall

not be entered in the revenue records in respect of the Temple

land, and that, in pursuance thereof, the names of the private

respondents were deleted from the revenue records.

7.1. The private respondents filed an application for correction of

the revenue entries, which was allowed by the learned SDO vide

impugned order; thereafter, the Tehsildar filed an appeal, which

was dismissed by the learned Divisional Commissioner; the

Tehsildar further filed a second appeal, which too was dismissed

by the learned BoR.

8. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to

reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the

case of Tara & Ors. (Supra) as well as the relevant portion of

the judgment rendered in the case of Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(14 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

Das Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.10967/2022, decided on 04.07.2023), as hereunder:

Tara & Ors. (Supra):

"(i) Whether the land held in Jagir, by Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, such idol being treated as a perpetual minor, will still be regarded as land held in the personal cultivation of the deity or will such land be regarded as held in the tenancy by the person cultivating such land as tenant of a deity?

Answer:- The question no.(i) is decided in favour of the State and against the Shebait/Pujari claiming the land to be saved by the Jagirs Act of 1952. The land held in Jagir by Hindu idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity personally or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, shall vest in the State, after the Jagirs Act of 1952. The Hindu idol (deity), even if it is treated to be a perpetual minor, could not continue to hold such land. Such land cannot be treated to be in its personal cultivation. A tenant of such land cultivating the land acquired the rights of khatedar of the State. Such land under the tenancy of a person other than Shebait/Purjari of Hindu Idol (deity) became khatedari land of such tenant. The name of Hindu Idol (deity) from such land had to be expunged from the revenue records with Shebait/Pujuri having no right to claim the land as Khatedar. Consequently, they had no right to transfer such lands, and all such transfers have to be treated as null and void, in contravention of the Jagirs Act 1952, and the land under such transfers to be resumed by the State.

Question no.(iii) Whether such a Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) can be alienated by them? If so, what is the effect?

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(15 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

Answer:- The Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol(deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) by the Jagirs Act of 1952 will not give them any right nor they could alienate the land. The alienation made by them of such land which was resumed/acquired by the State Government and for which claims were made and settled before the Jagir Commissioner, would be null and void and will have no effect".

Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das (Supra):

"13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and while keeping into consideration the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Tara and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) RLW2721 (Raj.), this Court is of the opinion that once the land has been consistently recorded as a temple/deity/doli land and has been marked as a Khudkasht for the same and there is no independent Khatedar having its existence in the land record from the beginning then any right cannot aggrieve any person merely because in the Khudkasht or deity he was acting as a sub-tenant. The consistency in the land record reflects the land in question belonging to the doli/temple/deity the perpetual minor and the category being Khudkasht.

14. In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of."

9. This Court further observes that the land in question was

recorded as a khudkasht land in the name of the Doli Shri Pabuji

Maharaj at the time of settlement and the Pujari/ Shebait cannot

acquire and get such land(s) registered in his name. In the

present case, once the land(s) was recorded as a Temple land(s)

and marked as khudkasht, neither the private respondents have

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(16 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

any right on such land, nor any other person can claim such right,

and if it is so done even by way of entry in the revenue records or

otherwise, the same is liable to be held contrary to the settled

proposition of law.

10. This Court also observes that the land in question, being a

khudkasht land(s), belonging to Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj, which is

a perpetual minor, the claim of the private respondents that they

were the khatedars of the land for last 54 years, is of no

consequence, because Doli Shri Pabuji Maharaj is a perpetual

minor, and thus, the subject falls within the ambit of Section 6 of

the Limitation Act, 1963.

10.1. In the case of Mangi Lal & Ors (Supra), it was held that

"Section 46 of the Act, 1955 provides for exemption of obtaining

khatedari rights in exceptional cases. It includes the case of a

minor and a person incapable of cultivating his holding by reason

of physical disability or infirmity. An idol/deity can fall to both

the classes i.e. a minor as well as a physically disabled or

infirm person and the manager or the State is under an

obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or

disabled person. No person can acquire Khatedari rights in

the land belonging to a minor. The object is laudable and

based on public policy and, therefore, the deity cannot be

deprived of his property by such a transaction, which has

fraudulently been entered upon by the Pujari himself. It is the

obligation/function of the State to look after the welfare of the

deity being a person, may be juristic, may be a person on account

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(17 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

of fiction of law but incapable to protect its interest being a

perpetual minor and disabled physically".

Relevant portion of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is

also reproduced as hereunder:

"6. Legal disability.--

(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified there for in the third column of the Schedule"

11. This Court further observes that the petitioner is the

Devotee/Worshipper of the Temple and he has a right to take any

action only in the interests of the Temple, including protection of

the Temple land(s), as the same is a settled position of law, as per

the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR

(Supra).

12. This Court also observes that the private respondents' names

were entered in the revenue records in relation to the khudkasht

land in question; previously, the said land was registered in the

name of Temple (Doli) under the khudkhasht category, and

therefore, father of the private respondents, namely, Pema Ram,

being the Pujari of Temple and thereafter, the private respondents

as his legal heirs, cannot claim any right over such land. Thus, in

the present case, the claim of the private respondents does not

hold good, even as per the precedent law laid down in the case of

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(18 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs Pujari Utthan

Kalyan Samiti & Ors. (Supra).

13. This Court further observes that the State Government

issued a circular on 13.12.1991 for deleting the name of the Pujari

from the record pertaining to the land of the Temple, and

thereafter, the State Government issued another circular on

24.05.2007 stated therein that the name of the Pujari qua the

land of the Temple is maintained; subsequently, the State

Government issued yet another circular dated 25.11.2011 stating

therein that direction regarding deletion of the name(s), in

pursuance of the circular dated 13.12.1991, requires

correction/rectification under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act, 1956.

13.1 This Court also observes that the State Government vide

circular dated 12.09.2018 issued directions regarding the present

issue and further clarification of the aforementioned circular dated

13.12.1991. The State Government vide circular dated 18.09.2019

clarified the point no.2 of the circular dated 12.09.2018.

Relevant portion of the said circular dated 18.09.2019 is

reproduced as hereunder:-

". . . . .;g Li'V fd;k tkrk gS fd jktLFkku Hkwfe lq/kkj rFkk tkxhj

iquZxzg.k vf/kfu;e 1952 dh /kkjk 9 ds rgr fdlh eafnj dh [kqndk"r Hkwfe

ij iqtkjh dks [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA "

13.2 This Court further observes that the State Government vide

circulars dated 28.12.2020 and 11.11.2021 clarified that the

Pujari is only protector of the land of the Temple and is required to

take all necessary measures for the benefits of the Temple, but it

(D.B. SAW/699/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(19 of 20) [CW-3589/2023]

cannot mean that the Pujari can get such land registered in his

own name, and thus, the Temple land cannot be taken away by

the Pujari.

Relevant portions of the said circulars are reproduced as

hereunder:-

11.11.2021 & 28.12.2020:

"eafnj Hkwfe gsrq ifjii= fnukad 13 .13.1991 }kjk fu/kkZfjr iaftdk esa

of.kZr iqtkjh eafnj Hkwfe ds laj{k.k ds :i esa fuEukuqlkj vuqer @ izkf/kd`r

gksaxs %&

● eafnj Hkwfe ds fodkl ds fy, lacaf/kr foHkkx ds fu;ekuqlkj fo|qr]]

is;ty] V~;wcosy vkfn ds fy, dusD"ku gsrqA

● Qly [kjkcs dh fLFkfr esa fu;ekuqlkj lgk;rk vuqnku gsrqA

● d`f'k foHkkx dh ;kstuk ds vuqlkj Hkwfe lhek esa ik+= gksus ij cht]

d`f'k miknku vkfn ij fu;ekuqlkj vuqnku izkIr djus gsrqA

● blh izdkj jkT; ljdkj dh vU; ;kstukvksa] ftlesa Hkwfe jgu u

gksrh gks] mlesa mUgsa ;Fkk izko/kku ykHk fn;k tk ldsxk !

● Eafnj ds uke cSd a [kkrk gksus ij bldk lapkyd ,oa mi;ksxdrkZ

iqtkjh dks cuk;k tk ldsxkA blesa izR;sd iqtkjh cgSfl;r eafnj ds laj{kd

ds :i esa fu;ekuqlkj ;kstukarxZr ykHk gsrq vuqer @ izkf/kd`r gksxkA

vr% iqu% funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ifji= fnukad 12 .09.2018 vuqlkj

dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djkosaA "