The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a 35-year-old petition challenging an order by the Ajmer Revenue Board, which had "re-entered" the land records to show that the land on which the Shri Gopalji Temple is situated belonged to the temple.

The Court emphasized that the land in question is owned by a deity, which is considered a minor under the law and cannot directly pursue legal remedies without human intervention.

A Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan said, “The land in question belongs to deity, a minor who is precluded from availing legal remedies without human intervention. The reference for correction of Jamabandi was made on the request of Devsthan Department. The procedure and working pace of government department should not render perpetual minor remediless.”

The Court referred to the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, highlighting that Khatedari or tenancy rights cannot be conferred upon a Khudkasht tenant (someone who cultivates land owned by another) or sub-tenant for land belonging to a minor deity, whether their name is entered in the records or not. The Court explained that the idol or deity of the temple is treated as a perpetual minor whose rights must be protected by the courts.

The Court referred to a prior judgment from a division bench in Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008), which established that a deity is considered a minor and that their rights are to be safeguarded in legal matters. The Court added, "On combined reading of Section 19 and 46 of the Act, the effect is that the khatedari rights of the land of minor cannot be conferred to Khudkasht tenant or sub-tenant whether their name is entered in annual register or not,"

The High Court also noted that the land had been correctly recorded in the temple's name, and the petitioners' claim to the land based on their ancestors' cultivation was not valid. The Court highlighted that the request to "re-enter" the land records in favor of the temple was made by the Devsthan Department in 1980, with the land being re-entered in the temple's name by the Revenue Board in 1990.

The petitioners had contested this in 1990, arguing that the reference to re-enter the land was delayed by 13 years and should have been dismissed on grounds of delay.

In response, the State argued that the land always belonged to the temple, and the earlier Jamabandi records showing the land in the petitioners' ancestors’ name were incorrect, as there was no order from the competent authority for such a change.

The Court observed that the land had been registered in the temple's name in the Jamabandi records for the Samwat years 2012-15 and 2018-21, and this entry remained unchallenged. The Court emphasized that the land had consistently been shown as temple property, and any alteration of this status was without basis.

The Court further explained, "The mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Section 19 of the Act. Petitioner on basis of possession could not have claimed khatedari rights of the land belonging to the deity. The proviso to section 19(1) creating exception of not conferring khatedari rights of land held by persons listed in section 46 of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation for protecting right of such persons. For reasons mentioned it cannot be said that reference application was not made within reasonable time,"

The Rajasthan High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the revenue board's decision and affirming the temple’s ownership of the land. The Court stressed that the rights of the minor deity must be protected, and the claim of the petitioners to the land was invalid.

Cause Title: Roodaram & Ors. v. The Board of Revenue & Ors., [2025:RJ-JP:2799]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate M.M. Ranjan and Advocate Shubham Sharma

Respondents: Senior Advocate Kamlakar Sharma and Advocates Madhusudan Rajpurohit, Somitra Chaturvedi

Click here to read/download Order