BALIA, J. - (1.) UNDISPUTED facts in the present case as found by all the authorities passing orders Ex. 4, Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 are that the land in question was recorded in the name of respondents No. 1 to 6 before the Settlement Officer in Samvat 2041 ordering change in the Jamabandi on 21. 11. 84 to enter the name of Shri Eklingji Maharaj as Khatedar. Aggrieved with the change, the respondents No. 1 to 6 have made the application before the Addl. Collector, Udaipur alleging that the settlement authorities are required to repeat the entries of existing Jamabandies and are not authorised to alter the entries without orders or any legal sanction from competent authorities in appropriate proceedings and as such the order of Settlement Officer dated 21. 11. 84 is without jurisdiction. The Addl. Collector, in the first instance, had no quarrel with the aforesaid principle but on a report submitted about the properties of the temple came to the conclusion that since as per that report the land is shown to be of Eklingji Maharaj and the complainant-applicants are recorded as Sikmi Khadmdars, the alteration in the Jamabandi was proper. The said order was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 21. 8. 96 vide Annex. 5. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that in the absence of any orders from the competent authority to alter the records, there could not have been any change affected at the behest of the settlement authorities inasmuch as they have no jurisdiction to alter the continuity of the land record as it exists immediately before the new settlement. It is this order, which has been challenged by the State, in this petition.
(2.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land stood recorded in the name of Eklingji much before the date it was recorded in the name of respondents No. 1 to 6 and, therefore the order of the Board of Revenue is not well founded and cannot be sustained on the principle that land belonging to a deity which is a perpetual minor continues to remain his property and no alteration can take place. This contention in my opinion is fallacious on the facts of the present case. While there cannot be any quarrel on the principle that the land which originally belongs to deity and recorded in the name of such deity could not without proper orders be transferred or recorded in the name of others. However, that was not the subject matter before the authorities below at all. None of the authorities below had inquired into facts nor any contention appears to have been raised before them that the land originally stood recorded in the name of Eklingji and it is only correction of the Jamabandi as it originally stood. The only contention throughout the proceedings before all the authorities have been that notwithstanding that there has been alteration in the land records at the behest of the Settlement Officer which was not permissible in law but since a report has been made that land belongs to deity, the correction in the land record is correct. No enquiry into the correctness of such report has been made and nor any finding could be reached on this aspect of the matter without notice to the present claimants in any appropriate proceedings. The principle which has been unhesitatingly accepted by all the authorities and about which even today there is no dispute that the Settlement Officer on his own could not alter the existing entries except by the order of the competent officer. However even now Mr. C. L. Jain is not in a position to produce before the Court any order of the competent officer holding that the land in question belongs to a deity and never belonged to the claimants and thereby ordering the correction of the land records in accordance with that finding. In the absence of any finding by the competent officer in appropriate proceedings about the rights of the said deity to hold the land against the interest of the present claimants, it was not possible for the Settlement Officer to have recorded the name of deity by altering the continuity of the land record on his own. That being the position, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19. 2. 97 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record about the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer to bring about any change in the existing land record through the settlement operations. If any change in the land record is to be made, it has to be made after notice to the parties whose rights are likely to be affected. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. .;