- (1.) IT is said,
(2.) HKXOKU ds ?kj nsj gs] va/ksj ughaa** Real justice has been done in this case by the Board of Revenue in an appeal filed by the present petitioner Aatma Ram by passing the impugned order at Annex. 3 dated 29. 7. 98. The disputed land was in the name of Shri``shankheshwar-ji Temple''. It is well settled law that status of deity is of a minor. The land belonging to deity cannot be transferred by any means in favour of any other person. The said land was grabbed by the petitioner as well as contesting respondents by way of consent decree dated 29. 6. 81. 1/3 share had gone in favour of petitioner, whereas, 2/3 share had gone in favour of contesting respondents. The said consent decree was chall- enged in a suit by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector. The matter went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and then ultimately in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. Learned Members of Board of Revenue not only quashed the orders passed by the courts below but also declared the consent decree dated 29. 6. 81 as void and accordingly quashed the same as it was of the op- inion that the land was in the name of Shri Shankheshwar-ji Temple. Accordingly, Board of Revenue in its operative part of the order in para 13 directed the S. D. O. Jalore to record Khatedari rights of the said land in the name of Shri Shankheshwarji Temple and further ordered that khatedari rights of the land in question cannot be transferred in the name of any other person or persons. This part of the order has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this writ petition which is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel Shri Kalla vehemently submitted that after quashing the order passed by courts below the Board of Revenue should have rested there. He submitted that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to quash the consent dec- ree passed by the competent court. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction under Sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to direct the S. D. O. ,jalore to record the khatedari rights of the land in question in the name of Shri Shankheshwar ji Temple and not to record the Khatedari rights of the land in the name of any other person. He submitted that there was no such prayer made by the petitioner in his appeal filed before the Board of Revenue. He, therefore, submitted that the Board of Revenue has exceeded in its jurisdiction, therefore, this Court should exercise its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Supervisionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Supervisionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are required to be exercised by this Court in a case where gross injustice is done or there is failure of justice. In this case, the Board of Revenue has not only done justice but real justice by quashing the consent decree dated 29. 6. 81 obtained by fraud. It is unfortunate that court below without considering the provisions of law has passed such consent decree. Such a decree, therefore, was liable to be quashed and declared void and in my opinion the Board of Revenue has rightly declared it as void and accordingly quashed it. It is not in dispute that the Khatedari rights of the land in question were in the name of Shri Shankheshwar ji Temple. It is well settled law that land belong- ing to `deity' which is having a permanent status of `minor' cannot be transferred to anyone by any means.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, I do not see any reason to exercise my powers either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .;