RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THE appellants in this special appeal have assailed the judgment dated 3. 1. 2006 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the appellants challenged the order dated 22. 4. 2004 passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, jaipur, under which the revision petition filed by Murti Shriman Thakur Bihariji Virajman, through its Pujari Mahant Rakeshdas Chela Shri Goverdhandas (respondent No. 2) was allowed and the resolution No. 9 (1) 2 dated 7. 7. 96 passed by the Municipal board, Udaipurwati regularising possession of the appellants on the land in question was set aside. THE revision petition was filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities ct, 1959 which provides that the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, so as to satisfy itself about the correctness, illegality or propriety of an order passed by or on behalf of the board, call for and examine the relevant record and may reverse or modify such order.
(2.) THE Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, allowed the said revision petition on the premises that the land in dispute in property of the deity namely; Mandir Murti Shri thakur Bihariji, who is perpetual minor. THE Municipal Board could not confer title of such land on any person by way of regularisation of possession without permission of the competent Court. It was held that the resolution passed by the board to the said effect was nullity. THE properties in question belong to the public trust which is liable to be registered as such under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. A copy of the said order was endorsed to the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, for necessary action. Liberty was given to the petitioner to file a regular suit till the trust was duly registered. THE Director, Local Bodies thus on examination of the relevant records came to the conclusion that the Municipal Board did not make proper enquiry so as to satisfy itself about the status of the land prior to passing the impugned resolution. the order of regularisation was passed merely on the basis of report of a clerk. Neither the members of the Board inspected the site of the land nor did the executive officer of the board made any enquiry as to how the appellants came in possession of such land and who was having the possession/title of the land there before. THE Director, Local Bodies therefore, set aside the resolution referred to supra holding that the Municipal board did not have any power to regularise the land in favour of the appellants on the basis of prolonged possession. THE appellants however, were set at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for desired relief. We have heard Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record. Counsel for the appellants challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also that of the Director of Local Bodies on the ground that the ks are in possession of the land in dispute even prior to 31. 8. 1971 and by virtue of the Government order dated 9. 5. 1977, the Municipal Board has issued a Patta in their favour on payment of requisite amount which has been negotiated by them on the basis of their long possession. After the Patta was issued to them, the sale-deed has also been registered by the Municipal board in their favour. Application filed by the respondent No. 2 against such sale by way of regularisation in favour of the appellants under the provisions of Section 283 read with Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 was rejected by the District Collector vide his order dated 1. 12. 1998 holding that the sale of the land under dispute has attained finality and that the respondent No. 2 could challenge the same only by filing a regular civil suit. He further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the regularisation of the land in dispute was made in favour of the petitioner by resolution of the Board on the basis of petitioners' possession which was also proved by the documentary evidence. The Municipal Board had all the powers to pass the resolution in question because the land was recorded as government land in revenue records and the appellants were in possession of the same since the time of their ancestors. It was not a temple land nor was it the land of deity. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that sale had attained finality, Patta was executed and sale deed was registered in favour of the appellants. The same could not be annulled except by decree of court of competent jurisdiction. Section 80-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, confers upon the municipalities power to regularise possession of the person over any land which are deemed to have been placed at their disposal as per provisions of Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Section 102-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 provides that any nazul land or land set apart under Section 92 may be placed by the State Government at the disposal of a local authority having jurisdiction and such local authority may make an order with regard to the land so placed at its disposal for and on behalf of he State Government or may use the same for the special purpose for which it has been set apart, to such extent and subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, lay down and in such manner as it may from time to time prescribe. Section 90-B with reference to which powers are conferred on the municipalities of the State to regularise possession of a person on any land under the provisions of Section 80-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 clearly provides in its sub- section (11) that nothing in this section shall apply to any land belonging to deity, Devsthan department, any public trust, any religious or charitable institution or any wakf. When the legislature by so providing in section 90b of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 itself has kept the lands belonging to deity, devsthan department and any public trust or religious or charitable institution or the wakfs, out of purview of Section 80a supra, the Municipal board could not have by passing a simple resolution regularise possession of disputed land in favour of the appellants without first ascertaining whether or not it was a land of deity. Although the appellants claim that it is a Government land having been so recorded in revenue records and not a temple land of the deity but this position is being controverted by the respondent No. 2. The director of Local Bodies while allowing the revision petition of respondent No. 2 has in para 11 of his order categorically recorded a finding that the Municipal Board did not hold any proper enquiry prior to passing of impugned resolution so as to ascertain about the status of the land and passed the subject resolution merely on the basis of report of a clerk. The members neither inspected the site of said land nor did the executive officer hold any enquiry as to how the appellants come in possession of the land in dispute. In these circumstances, it essentially becomes a question of fact which can be appropriately decided only by a Civil Court in regular suit where evidence on this contentions issue can be led by the parties.
(3.) IN our view the Director, Local Bodies has rightly held that title of the land of a temple could not be conferred on the appellants by regularising their possession without due permission from the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, he rightly set aside the resolution passed by the Board to the said effect. We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. For the aforestated reasons, the present special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. . ;