P.C.JAIN,J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner Rajya Vaidhya Pt. Ram Dayalu Sharma (since deceased and is being represented by his legal representa -tives) had prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction for quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated 12th December, 1973 and further prayed that the petitioner be allowed the annuity in respect of the State grants villages (1) Sarha Doongar, (2) Chak Sarna Doongar, (3) Basdi, (4) Chak Basdi, (5) Land in village Bhudarpura and villages Jairampura and Mundia, instead of the legal representatives of late Pt. Madan Mohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore, as directed in the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner, dated 29th November, 1968 and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, dated 6th December, 1972.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that there is a temple of Thakurji Shri Sire Behariji at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur; for the up -keep and maintenance of Sevapooja and Bhograj thereof, the following villages were granted by the erst -while State of Jaipur: S. No. Name of villages Tehsil and Land Revenue District 1. Sarna Dungar Jaipur Rs. 1,99675 2. Chak Sarna Dungar Jaipur Rs. 520.33 3. Basdi Jaipur Rs. 148.06 4. Chak Basdi Jaipur Rs. 1,175 49 5. Land in village Bhudarpura Jaipur Rs. 9.26 It is further stated by the petitioner that he alone was recognized by the State in accordance with law, with the duty of maintenance, worship and performance of Seva -Pooja and Bhograj of Thakurji Shri Sire Behariji vide Matmi Order dt. 20th April, 1955, under the Jaipar Matmi Rules, 1945. It is further stated that there are other temples, viz., (1) Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji at Ramganj Bazar Jaipur; (2) Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji; (3) Thakurji Shri Mahadevji at Jairampura; (4) Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia and (5) Thakurji Shri Govind Deviji at Govindpura and these temples are the private temples of the parties. It is further the case of the petitioner that the State of Jaipur also granted (a) for Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur, one village Hariballabhpura in Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur; (b) for Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia land in village Mundia with the land revenue of Rs. 87.19; and (c) for temples of Shri Laxmi Narainji and Shri Mahadevji at village Jairampura, land in village Jairampura having land revenue of Rs. 104.14 and for all these State grants also the petitioner was recognized as the persou responsible for the Seva -Pooja and Bhograj of the said deities vide the said Matmi Order dated 20th April, 1955 under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. The petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that for the Seva -Pooja and Bhograj of the temples of Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur and Thakurji Shri Govind Devji at Govindpura various Thikacedars (Jagirdars) had also granted certain lands of varying values. After resumption of the State Grants attached to the religious institutions and temples in Rajasthan on and from 1st August, 1960, the petitioner being the Matmidar, instead of filing separate claims.in respect of each temple, filed a consolidated claim in respect of all the aforesaid temples. On his filing the claim, objections were filed on or about 21st October, 1961, on behalf of Vaidhya Madan Mohanji and Vaidhya Jugal Kishoreji the predecessors respectively of respondents No. 4 and of respon -dents Nos. 6 to 9 respectively. In the objections they also alleged that they were performing Bhograj and Seva -Pooja of the temple of Thakuiji Shri Vijai Govindji situated at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur and, therefore, they were entitled to compensation to the extent of their share, i.e., 2/3rd in the aforesaid temple of Thakurji Shri Vijai Govindji in the villages and lands, the description of which is as follows: JUDGEMENT_552_TLRAJ0_1988.htm A further objection was also filed separately that in accordance with the udgment of the High Court, they were further entitled to Rs. 138/ -anually from the income of the Muafies given by Jagirdars and this has not been entered in the claim by the petitioner and, therefore, this amount of Rs. 138/ - be also got paid from the annual claim. The case of the petitioner is that in these objections, late Pandit Madan Mohan and late Pandit Jugal Kishore did not raise any objection to the payment of compensation to the petitioner alone in respect of resumption of the State Grants attached to the Temple of Thakurji Shri Sireh Behariji and also the State grants attached to the Temples of Thakurji Shri Laxminarainji and Thakurji Shri Mahadevji at Jairampura and Thakurji Shri Radha Damodarji at Mundia. The petitioner has submitted that during the course of enquiry before the Jagir Commissioner, the petitioner submitted the relevant judgments of the Revenue Courts, the Civil Courts including the Hon'ble High Court and the order of Matmi in favour of himself and in favour of his late father Raj Vaidhya Pt. Nand Kishoreji Sharma in order to substantiate that as regards the State Grants, late Pt. Madanmohan and late Pt. Jugal Kishore had no right, title or share what so ever in the compensation payable in respect of resumption of the State Grants and that the objections that were raised by the objector's had been finally decided and rejected by the Government of Jaipur State as well as by the Board of Revenue for Jaipur State. In the writ petition the petitioner has also pleaded that the Jagir Commissioner in the enquiry struck the following issues: [1] Whether Shri Madanmohan and Shri Jugal Kishore are entitled to 2/3rd share in village Hariballabhpura? [2] Whether the above two objectors are entitled to any share in the wells and Lands situated in villages other than Hariballabhpura? [3] In case issue No. 2 is decided against the objectors, are they entitled to receive Rs. 138/ - anually from the non -objector? [4] What reliefs the objectors are entitled to?
(3.) WITH regard to issue No. 1, the Jagir Commissioner decided that the objectors had no right, title or share and that they failed to discharge the burden that they were entitled to 2/3rd share in village Hariballabhpura, and hence issue No. 1 was decided against the objectors.;