- (1.) This Larger Bench was constituted to decide the important questions of law, which were referred on 26.02.2001, re-framed on 16.05.2001, 01.03.2011 and again on 17.12.2014 as follows:- "(i) Whether the land held in Jagir, by Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, such idol being treated as a perpetual minor, will still be regarded as land held in the personal cultivation of the deity or will such land be regarded as held in the tenancy by the person cultivating such land as tenant of a deity? (ii) What are the rights of the Hindu Idol (deity) in the lands held by them in the name of its Shebaits/Pujari on the date of resumption of such Jagir, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952? (iii) Whether such a Jagir land/Muafi held by the Shebait/Pujari of Hindu Idol (deity) in their name after the date of resumption of the Jagir (Muafi) can be alienated by them? If so, what is the effect? (iv) Whether any person can acquire right by adverse possession in the lands of aforesaid nature against the holder? (v) Whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and u/s.232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a Hindu Idol (deity). If so, to what extent?"
(2.) A large number of writ petitions are pending in the Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur as well as at Bench, Jaipur, awaiting the decision on these questions referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3263/1997 Ramesh Chand Tiwari & anr. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors,2000 2 RLR 269 on 21 st February, 2000. Learned Single Judge referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Lal & anr. V/s Board of Revenue & ors,1990 1 RLR 161, in which it was held that the deity/idol is a juristic person, having right to hold the property including the agricultural land and that, the land in question not being khudkasht of the deity and was cultivated by the tenants, as such, after the resumption of jagirs, the land should be treated as khatedari land of the tenants and another judgment of learned Single Judge in Bal Kishan V/s Board of Revenue and ors,2000 1 RLR 69, in which, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepa V/s State of Rajasthan & ors, 1996 1 SCC 612, it was held that the petitioner acquired the tenancy rights over the Muafi land of the deity under the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short, "the Jagirs Act of 1952"). It was noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangi Lal & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors,1997 2 RLR 755 had held that the deity/idol is treated to be a minor or physically disabled person and acquires khatedari rights over the land and such rights cannot be transferred to any other person and that necessary corrections can be made inspite of inordinate delay. In Temple of Thakurji Village Kansar V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors, 1998 3 WLC(Raj) 387 and Ram Lal & ors. V/s Board of Revenue,2000 1 RLR 258 as well as in Naini Bai & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors,2000 1 RLR 143, the rights of the deity were upheld by learned Single Judge. The point of delay in making the reference was also considered in the case of Lad Bai & ors. V/s Board of Revenue,2000 1 RLR 123.
(3.) Learned Single Judge noticed that in all the aforesaid decisions, there is absence of any clarity on the questions of law and felt that in view of the large number of cases pending in the revenue courts at various stages, it would be appropriate that this Court may decide the issues by framing appropriate questions.;