SBCWP No.7821/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7821/2010. Hari Narain & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order:- December 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioners. ******* BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioners against the order of the Additional Collector, Sikar dated 16/5/1996, Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 7/4/1997 and Board of Revenue dated 5/2/2010. By all these orders, the various revenue authorities have held that mutation has rightly been attested in favour of the temple Murti Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Virajman, Chopar Bazar, Srimadhopur in compliance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue accepting reference made to it under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 15/1/1985 accepted the reference made to it by the Additional Collector Sikar vide order dated 24/5/1983. Collector on the application of the Tehsildar made reference asserting that the entire land measuring 27 bighas and 7 biswa consisting of Khasra Nos.215, 216, 220, 222, 223 and 224 was recorded in the khatedari of Murti SBCWP No.7821/10. 2 Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Virajman. In the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2008 to 2027 when the maufi mandir was resumed in Samwat Year 2010, Pujari of the Temple, Shri Hari Narain and Shyam Das Chela Ganesh Das etc. got their land recorded in their khatedari and they sold part of such land to Jai Narayan through illegal Mutation No.152 whereas, no one can acquire khatedari rights over the land of a deity. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that half of the land was already recorded in the name of the temple prior to attestation of Mutation No.152 and therefore order passed by the Board of Revenue accepting reference that the status with regard to land as it was prior to existence of Mutation No.152 should be restored has been misconstrued by various revenue authorities by which, they recorded the entire land in favour of the temple-deity. Learned counsel referred to the entry dated 29/8/1969 to bring home the point. It is contended that petitioners, who are legal representatives of bonafide purchasers of the land, Shri Jai Narayan, cannot be dispossessed from the land in such a slip-shod manner because Mutation No.88 that was attested in their favour was never subjected to challenge by anybody. It was also argued that the Board of Revenue while setting aside Mutation No.152 has directed restoration of possession as it was existing prior to attestation of that mutation. Already half of the land was recorded in the name of the deity prior to that mutation. The entire land could not have been SBCWP No.7821/10. 3 therefore recorded in the name of the deity. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : RLR 1995(1) 555 and Dhanna Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : RLR 1996(1) 116 to argue that the reference should not have been made with delay and if made, the Board of Revenue should have declined to entertain such reference. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the impugned-orders. Tehsildar in the present matter, made a reference with specific request that the entire land of Khasra Nos.215, 216, 220, 222, 223 and 224 measuring 27 bighas and 7 biswa was originally recorded in the khatedari of Murti Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Virajman and in support of this assertion, he produced copies of Jamabandi of Samwat Years 2008 to 2027. Even if name of Jai Narayan was entered in the column related to “farmers” but he could not acquire khatedari rights in maufi land. This was not possible even when Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force. Admittedly, part of this land was sold by their ancestors to the Pujari. Contention that since earlier than attestation of Mutation No.152, half of the land was recorded in the name of temple therefore order of the Board of Revenue should be construed in that manner, cannot be accepted. Board of Revenue while setting aside Mutation No.152 has also directed that the entire land of Khasra Nos.215, 216, 220, 222, 223 and 224 measuring 27 bighas and 7 biswa be recorded in the name of Murti Mandir SBCWP No.7821/10. 4 Shri Sitaram Ji Virajman. The order of the Board of Revenue cannot be read by splitting it into two parts and then holding that Mutation No.152 has been set- aside in isolation for only one part. The Board of Revenue has passed a composite order coupled with the direction that the entire land of Khasra Nos.215, 216, 220, 222, 223 and 224 measuring 27 bighas and 7 biswa be recorded in the name of the deity. As far as delay is concerned, delay in the present matter cannot be said to have occasioned any prejudice to the petitioners because they have all along contested the matter thereafter reference order was passed and when matter went in reference, during reference proceedings held before the Board of Revenue and thereafter when the mutation entries were made and then thereafter they filed successive appeals/revisions before the Additional Collector, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, respectively. Even otherwise, in different pronouncements, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that deity is a perpetual minor against which, no limitation can be said to run. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned-orders. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil