- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.1995 in SBCWP No. 1020/1984 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants herein who had challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue was dismissed. The entire dispute arises out of a proceeding initialed by the respondent-deity to change the entries in respect of 8 bighas and 5 biswas of land situated in several Khasras in Islampur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. The proceeding had been initiated as the respondent No. 4 the idol of Shri Govind Deo Ji Maharaj, Tehsil Behror District Alwar raised a grievance through the Pujari that the land which was entered in the name of the appellants-petitioner was erroneous and the same should have been rectified. The proceeding ultimately reached up to the Board of Revenue and it was held that the entries made in the Revenue record in the name of the deity-the idol of Shri Govind Deo Ji Maharaj District Alwar was legal and correct. The petitioner/appellants feeling aggrieved with this order filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities including the Board of Revenue which was dismissed as the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the present proceeding arose out of the application for mutation for transfer of entries which obviously hinges upon the ownership of the title. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the respondent-deity has already filed a suit with regard to the tenancy right which is pending before the trial Court. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that as the entries made in the revenue record where only fiscal in nature, it did not confer any right or title to the respondent-deity and the contesting parties would be free to adduce their evidence before the trial Court and the ultimate decision of the trial Court would be binding on the parties and therefore, no interference was called for under Article 226 of the constitution.
(2.) The petitioners/appellants herein instead of contesting the suit before the trial Court in order to get the title/khatedari rights adjudicated, they preferred an appeal before this Court wherein they have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the authorities allowing change of entries in the revenue record in the name of the respondent-deity.
(3.) Challenging the orders passed by the courts below, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellants Miss Raj Sharma that the change in the entries in revenue record have been allowed up to the Board of Revenue without examining the claim of khatedari rights of the petitioners/appellants in regard to the land in question which they had acquired from the erstwhile ruler which had allowed the land to be cultivated by the petitioners/appellants and hence the entries should not have been allowed to be changed in the revenue record.;