IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.946/2001) D. B. Civil Special Appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,1949 against the judgment dated 31-8-2001 of learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1206/1990. Date of Judgment: July 30, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. R.K. Agarwal, for the appellant. Mr. Bhanu Pareek, for respondents No.4,5 and 6. BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE Shiv Kumar Sharma,J.) Agricultural land belonging to deity was mutated in the names of Mukhram, Mahaveer and Murli vide mutations No.203 and 611 respectively entered on May 7, 1960 and November 11, 1961. On November 7, 1986, i.e. after about 25 years, the Additional Collector Sikar requested Board of Revenue to cancel the said mutations by making reference dated November 7, 1986 under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 (for short `1956 Act'). The Board of Revenue rejected the reference on the ground that it was filed after unreasonable delay vide order dated March 1, 1989. A writ petition was thereafter filed and after dismissal of writ petition instant appeal has been submitted. 2. The facts in brief are that in the year 1936 the land bearing khasra Nos.301, 372 and 673 measuring 60 bighas 14 biswas were donated by Shri Madho Singh ji Bahadur, the then Rao Raja of Thikana Sikar to Deity Murti Mandir Niyamaji. On resumption of Jagir under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 the land was converted into pucca bigha and new khasra numbers were given as 373, 365, 966 and 966/1361 measuring 26 bighas 19 biswas. At this time land of 966/1361 was entered in the name of Bhagwan Das Pujari Murti Mandir Niyamajee. In the year 1975 Tehsildar Laxmangarh noticed this fact and made application to Collector Sikar for making reference. The reference was made, but ultimately the matter was remanded by the Board of Revenue. On re-examination by the Additional Collector it was found that initially the entire land was in the name of deity and that the land 18 bighas 2 biswas was wrongly entered in the name of Pujari as such subsequent orders of mutation were illegal. 3. We have heard rival submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that at the time of entering new khasra numbers of the land belonging to deity, a khasra number was wrongly entered in the name of pujari. According to learned counsel the land belonging to deity could not have been misappropriated by the Pujari of the deity. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents contended that there was unreasonable delay in making reference and since it was beyond limitation the Board of Revenue rightly rejected the reference. 6. Having scanned the material on record we notice that initially the land in question was entered in the name of Deity and at the time of issuing new khasra number name of Pujari was entered without safeguarding the rights of deity. 7. The deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by the courts as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.A. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007) 7 SCC 482 in para 10 thus:- “The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ archakas/ shebaits/ employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of “fences eating the crops” should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/ trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In our opinion the act of removing the name of deity from the revenue record is void, ab initio and as and when this illegal act came to the knowledge the mutations ought to have been struck down since fraud was played in making such entries. It appears that public interest is suffered on account of passive collusion between the public officers and private parties, in such a situation the Board of Revenue should have interfered with the matter even after a long delay, as is held by Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [RLW 1996(1) Raj. 396] thus:- (Para 25) “However, we make it clear that in case where fraud is alleged and public interest is shown to be suffering on account of collusion between the public officers and the private party, this revisional power may be exercised even after a period of one year...” (Emphasis Supplied) In Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 625) it was observed that where order has been obtained by fraud, the power of reference can be exercised even after the unreasonable delay. 9. Aforequoted observations made by Division Benches in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) escaped notice of learned Single Judge. Since the impugned order of learned Single Judge is against the ratio indicated in A.A. Gopalkrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board (supra), it cannot be sustained. 10. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders dated August 31, 2001 of learned Single Judge as well as March 1, 1989 of the Board of Revenue Ajmer. While allowing the reference dated November 7, 1986 made by Additional Collector Sikar, we cancel the mutation No.203 dated May 7, 1960 and 611 dated November 11, 1961 in favour of Mukhram, Mahaveer and Murli. The records shall be corrected by Tehsildar Laxmangarh District Sikar and the land shall be entered in the name of Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh Sikar within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/