VERMA, J. - (1.) AGRICULTURAL land comprising of Khasra No. 156, 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166 and well No. 162 was maufi land of Thakur Shri Gopal through Pujari Shri Hari Vallabh Das. The Maufi land was resumed under the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act and the land had vested in the State. Under the Act, Mafidars were to get compensation of the resumed land as per the principles laid down in the Act and the Rules itself.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were the purchasers of the resumed land from Smt. Bhuri who according to the petitioners was tenant of the land. IT is stated that deity-respondent No. 4 was land holder and disputed land was not in Khud-Kast of the land holder. Smt. Bhuri a recorded tenant of land holder is said to have sold her Khatedari tenant rights to the petitioners vide registered sale-deed in July, 1968. Mutation was also done in favour of the petitioner Gaurishankar on 28. 2. 69 and thereafter, the petitioner was recorded as Khatedar tenant. They are in possession since 1968, it is so alleged. IT is the contention of the petitioner that despite the fact that compensation had been taken by respondent No. 4 at the time of resumption of maufi, but still in the year 1984, an application was made before the Collector, Jaipur to the effect that the land in question was belonging to Bhog of Thakurji and that name of petitioner had been wrongly recorded in the Revenue Record in the name of respondents and prayed for correction of the record. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which was replied to. IT was stated in the reply that Bhuri was recorded as tenant in Samvat year 2008 onwards. The Additional Collector had held that Bhuri could not acquire Khatedari right under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, transfer of land made by her in favour of the petitioners was illegal and, therefore, had made a reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the mutation on 2. 11. 85 vide Annex. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that after resumption of maufi Land, the land stood resumed and Bhuri was recorded as tenant and she was in cultivatory possession of the land in Samvat year 2008. She had automatically acquired the status of Khatedar-tenant. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue had erroneously held that Smt. Bhuri was sub-tenant and therefore, could not acquire khatedari rights u/sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Reply has been filed by the respondents and the contentions as stated are denied. It is submitted that Bhuri was sub-tenant and was not Khatedar tenant and respondent No. 4 being perpetual minor was to be treated as Khud-Kast. However, it is not disputed and rather so is held by the authorities below that Bhuri was recorded to be in possession as cultivator. (FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 660/89) Lekhi and Anr. vs. State and Ors. Mutations in the name of petitioners were made by Tehsildar Bharatpur vide mutation No. 380 dated 9. 11. 60 under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and on the said basis, names of petitioners were entered in the Revenue Record. Respondent No. 4 Idol Shri Satya Narainji moved an application on 30th Oct, 1978 after 18 years before the Collector, Bharatpur alleging that Pujari of the temple was in khatedari of the aforesaid land and mutation had been wrongly entered in favour of the petitioners. The land comprises of Khasras No. 1718, 1832, 1837, 1838, 1717, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1940, 1843, 1871, 1872, 1841, 1842, 1826, 1927, 1844, 1845, 1846 and 1870. Notices were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted that they were the real cultivators and in possession of the land in dispute and their names were duly recorded in the Revenue Record since 1960 and they were in actual possession of the land for many decades of years and mutation was rightly done. The Additional Collector accepted the application of respondent No. 4 and recommended the reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of mutation vide its order dated 31. 12. 86, Annex. 3. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference vide its order dated 15. 12. 88 and mutation was cancelled after 28 years and the land was re-entered in Khatedari of the temple. The order of Board of Revenue has been attached as Annex. 4. The petitioners rely on record of Jamabandi from Samvat year 2009 to 2012 & 2017 to 2020, Ex. 5 and 6. A prayer has been made to quash the impugned orders Annex. 3 & 4.
(3.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that in the Jamabandi from samvat year 2009 to 2012, name of Gyarsi S/o Shankar is recorded in column No. 5 as sub-tenant and petitioners have been wrongly entered as khatedars and that idol being perpetual minor, no rights could accrue to any sub-tenant. It is not disputed that at the time of resumption of Jagir, the petitioners in both the cases were in occupation as cultivators. The question which arises for deter-mination in the present case is whether in the circumstances any right accrues to such socalled sub-tenant of the land of Maufi which stood resumed and had vested in the State and whether the land in question was to be treated as Khatedari land of the tenant or not? The counsel for the parties rely on number of judgments. In the case of Ramlal and ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the land if cultivated by tenants after resumption of Jagir, the land should be treated as Khatedari land of the tenant. The Division Bench has further held as under: " 15. Thus, it is clear that either it must be cultivated with one's own labour or the labour of the family member or by servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not by way of share in crops. On the resumption of Jagir and Khudkast land remained with the Khatedar and other land vested in the State. Under Section 9 of the Act of 1952, even tenant in a Jagir land who at the commencement of this Act is entered in the revenue records as a Khamdar, Pattadar or under any other description implying that the tenant has heritable and full transferable rights in the tenancy shall continue to have such rights and shall be called a Khatedar tenant in respect of such land. " Yet by another judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in Prabhudas vs. State of Rajasthan (2), it was held that deity is a perpetual minor and no tenancy right can be acquired against the minor. It was so held in the judgment Mohan Lal vs. Board of Revenue ;