IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (L.Rs. Of Nathu Nath & Anr. vs. Board of Revenue) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4149/2006 Date of judgment:- 17.12.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. K.K.Shah , for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Dave, for the respondents. Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, Dy.Government Advocate. BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 20.12.05 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Reference No.11/01/LR/Pali, whereby the reference made by the District Collector, Pali for cancellation of mutation no.25 dated 30.8.64 pertaining to land ad measuring 5 bighas and 3 biswas comprising khasra no. 208 and 209 village Aasanjilelao , tehsil Raipur, has been accepted and while cancelling the said mutation existing in the name of the petitioners, the land has been ordered to be mutated in the name of “Doli Banam Mandir Sri Ayasji Vake , Aasan Jilelao” . The brief facts of the case set out in the writ petition are that late Shri Nathu Nath, predecessor of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner Bhanwar Nath purchased the agriculture land comprising khasra no.208 measuring 19 biswas and khasra no.209 measuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas, total 5 bighas 3 biswas from one Shri Nigam Rawal, Chela Sukham Rawal, by caste Nath, resident of Aasan Jilelao, tehsil Raipur, district Pali by a registered sale deed dated 11.6.62.It is stated that late Shri Nigam Rawal was having status of 'Jagirdar' of village Aasan Jilelao and the land in question bearing khasra no.208 and 209 had been shown as Khudkast and the same was entered in the name of “Aasan Jilelao Baitmam Aayash Nigam Rawal Chela Sukham Rawal Jagirdar” . According to the petitioners, in pursuance of aforesaid registered sale deed , the land in question was mutated in the name of Nathu Nath and Bhanwar Nath vide mutation no.25 which was duly sanctioned by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pachpadra on 30.08.64. It is stated that Tehsildar, Raipur submitted an application u/s 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956( in short “the Act of 1956” hereinafter) before the District Collector,Pali for cancellation of aforesaid mutation no. 25 dated 30.08.64 alleging therein that the khatedari of the land in question was entered in the revenue record in the name of “Doli Banam Mandir Sri Ayasji Vake , Aasan Jilelao”. However, the Pujaris of the temple unauthorisedly transferred the land to Shri Nathu Nath and Bhanwar Nath, therefore, the mutation effected in their name vide mutation no. 25 dated 30.08.64 deserves to be cancelled being in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 (1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955( in short “the Act of 1955” hereinafter). Accepting the application preferred by the Tehsildar, Raipur, the learned District Collector,Pali made a reference to the Board of Revenue,Ajmer. The learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 5.3.91 while accepting the reference , cancelled the mutation no.25 dated 3.8.64 and ordered to re- enter the land in the khatedari of the temple. The petitioners preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. stating therein that Nathu Nath had died during the pendency of reference proceedings before the District Collector, Pali but, neither his legal representatives were brought on record nor, they were intimated about the proceedings pending. While accepting the application preferred, the learned Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the District Collector, Pali vide order dated 8.6.92 with the direction to decide the matter afresh on merits after issuing notices to the legal representatives of deceased Nathu Nath. After remand as aforesaid, the petitioners herein contested the application preferred by Tehsildar, Raipur before the learned District Collector, Pali. After due consideration, the learned District Collector, Pali arrived at the finding that the land in question was existing in the name of “Doli Banam Mandir Sri Ayasji Vake , Aasan Jilelao” in the revenue record and the Pujaris of the temple had no authority to transfer the land, therefore, the mutation entry no. 25 dated 30.08.64 deserves to be cancelled. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.11.2000 while accepting the application preferred by the Tehsildar, Raipur, the learned District Collector proceeded to make a reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the aforesaid mutation and for restoration of the entry in the name of the temple. The learned Board of Revenue while accepting the reference made by the District Collector, Pali ordered that the mutation entry no. 25 dated 30.08.64 effected in the name of the petitioners herein, may be cancelled and the land in questions may be re-entered in the name of “Doli Banam Mandir Sri Ayasji Vake , Aasan Jilelao”. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, wherein it is submitted that the petitioners have failed to prove their right or title or possession over the land in quesiton since the time of their predecessor. It is submitted that the land in question is Doli land and as per the provisions of the Act of 1955, the said land cannot be sold, therefore, the sale deed dated 11.6.62 is void ab initio. It has been denied that late Shri Nigam Rawal said to be predecessor in title, was Jagirdar of Aasan Jilelao. It is stated that as a matter of fact, late Shri Nigam Rawal was pujari of “Aasan Jilelao Baitmam Nigam Rawal Chela Sukham Rawal Jagirdar”. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue is in accordance with law. A reply to the writ petition has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, wherein it is stated that the petitioners are guilty of concealing material facts from this Court and have also made mis-statement of fact. It is stated that in pursuance of order dated 20.12.05, the land already stands mutated in the name of the temple. A copy of the Jamabandi has been placed on record as Annex.R/4/1. It is further stated that a revenue suit u/ss 88 , 187 and 92-A of the Act of 1955 preferred by the temple/idol through the respondent no.4 against the petitioners herein for declaration , possession and permanent injunction has already been decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer, vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.06 , a certified copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure R/4/2. It is stated that the petitioners have concealed yet another, important fact from the notice of the Court and have attempted to mislead the Court. It is pointed out that in ground no. E of the writ petition, the petitioners have referred to judgment dated 18.5.01 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and have relied upon the findings recorded therein to substantiate their case but, did not disclose that vide judgment dated 16.2.06(Annexure R/4/3), the Board of Revenue has categorically held that the order dated 18.5.01 is rendered ineffective. Accordingly, it is prayed that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. While supporting the finding arrived at by the learned Board of Revenue , it is further stated on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that the questions regarding right, title and interest on the land in question having been settled by the judgment and decree dated 1.5.06 , the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners did not disclose the factum of taking over of the possession by the respondent no. 4 on 30.6.06 and thereby persuaded this Court to pass an interim order in their favour. Thus, the conduct of the petitioners has been dishonest and such conduct itself warrants dismissal of the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. It is to be noticed that the land in question measuring 5 bighas and 3 biswas is found to be entered in the revenue record khatauni bandobast for Samvat 2011 and 2013 in the name of “Aasan Jilelao Baitmam Aayash Nigam Rawal Chela Sukham Rawal Jagirdar”. From the perusal of the entry , it appears that Nigam Rawal was the pujari, managing the temple. The construction of the aforesaid entry in no manner suggest that Shri Nigam Rawal was holding the land as Jagirdar. It is settled law that the idol being perpetual minor, the pujari managing the affairs of the temple has no authority to transfer the land belonging to idol. Thus, the transfer effected was ex facie in contravention of the provisions of Section 46(1)(a) of the Act of 1955. Moreover, the mutation entries by itself do not confer any title in parties. Thus, for the reasons recorded , the learned Board of Revenue has rightly ordered for cancellation of the mutation no.25 dated 30.8.64 existing in the name of Shri Nathu Nath,predecessor of the petitioners and Bhanwar Nath and for restoration of the entry in the name of “Aasan Jilelao Baitmam Aayash Nigam Rawal Chela Sukham Rawal Jagirdar” . Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners on the finding recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali in order dated 18.5.01 while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 9.10.85 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaitaran in revenue case no.94/85, whereby an application for temporary injunction preferred by Thaneshwar Mahadeo Mandir through the respondent no. 4 herein was allowed and order appointing Receiver was affirmed. It is to be noticed that the said order has already been held to be ineffective by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.2.06 even before petitioners filing the present writ petition before this Court. Moreover, the suit preferred on behalf of the idol for declaration , possession and permanent injunction having been decreed by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.06, the petitioners cannot claim any right whatsoever in the land in question. The petitioners are apparently guilty of concealing all these material facts from this Court. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the conduct of the petitioners by itself disentitles them from seeking any relief from this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That apart, as discussed above, the petitioners have no case whatsoever in their favour even on merits. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Board of Revenue. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.