1 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1798/08 Babu Lal Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Others Date of Order : : 11.05.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Sunil Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex.8 dated 24.2.2003 and Annex.9 30.10.2007 passed by the respondent Settlement Commissioner and Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer respectively. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is purchaser of the land though the land stands recorded as Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Math Pujari Surjan Puri Chela Dhanna Puri Gusai bearing Khasra No.580 measuring 11.5 bighas situated at village Kuchera. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the land was 2 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 recorded in the name of Pujari of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Math and therefore, the vendor has title to sale the land to the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the disputed land was not recorded as Khudkasht land of Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Math and therefore, the reference made by the non-petitioner Tehsildar is bad in law. It was lastly contended that Subh Karan one of the co-purchaser died in the year 1990 and therefore, the entire proceeding is bad in law. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the material available on record. It appears that a reference was made by the State being Reference No.10/01 against Gomti and Others, Reference No.7/02 against Sadul and Ors., Reference No.14/02 against Sadula Choutha Mali and Anr., Reference No. 13/02 against Chetnaram and Anr., Reference No. 17/02 against Rugharam and Anr., Reference No. 18/02 Alsa and Anr., Reference No.26/02 against Chuna and Anr., Reference No.54/02 against Haruram and Anr., Reference No.12/02 against Subhkaran and Anr., Reference No.46/02 against Dana, Reference No.55/02 against Jairam and Reference No.27/02 against Damodar. All these references came to be decided by the respondent Settlement Commissioner by order 3 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 impugned Annex.8 dated 25.2.2003. Even up to 2003, the petitioner who was party in the Reference along with Subhkaran has not informed the respondent Settlement Officer about the death of Subhkaran and contested the case throughout. Even before Board of Revenue, Subhkaran and petitioner Babulal were represented by their counsel Mr. K.K.Purohit and upto the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 30.7.2007 Annex.9, the petitioner did not disclose the death of Subhkaran, rather Subhkaran was represented by counsel Mr. K.K.Purohit. Had Subhkaran been died long back, it was the responsibility of the respondent in the proceedings and the petitioner herein to inform the concerned authorities about the death of Subhkaran and as to whether his death has any adverse effect. Indisputably, the land in question is recorded in the name of Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Math i.e. the deity of Mahadevji which is perpetual minor. The respondent Board of Revenue held that the Deity is a perpetual minor and therefore, any cultivation of the land of Deity will be considered to be cultivation by the Deity and no person will have any Khatedari rights over such land. Before the authorities below, the petitioner failed to establish that the land on which he claims to be in cultivatory possession was of his ancestral possessed land. In my view, the Board of 4 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 Revenue was justified in passing the order impugned. In Temple Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 85, a Division Bench of this Court and in Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (3) RLW 2017, this Court placed reliance upon a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Bishwanath & Anr. Vs. Thakur Radhavallabhji and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1044 and held that deity is a perpetual minor and as per the provisions of Section 46 of the Act of 1955 its interest is to be protected by the State, Revenue Authorities and the Courts. The question of alienation of its property is not permissible save as provided under the law. In Modh Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4904/2002, decided on 13.12.2003, this Court held that the name of the petitioner, which was shown in Revenue Record along with that of the deity, has been deleted from the revenue record and there is no illegality in doing so because the land belonging to deity cannot be Khatedari land of Pujari or the Trustee and as such cannot be subjected to transfer, alienation or sale by the Pujari or Trustee. The decision of this Court in Modh Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) came to be challenged before Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court upheld 5 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 that decision. In this view of the matter, it is settled preposition of law that the deity is a perpetual minor and land of the deity cannot be transferred even by Pujari may be in cultivatory possession and therefore, in my view the respondents Settlement Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue were justified in passing the orders impugned. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. Rp 6 S.B.C.W. NO. 1798/2008 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.3111/08 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1798/2008 Date of Order : 11.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Sunil Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Govt. Counsel for respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. Rp