9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement before the Competent Authority on 24th Feb. 1945, that the said Temple of Shri Thakurji was very old and the land in dispute was the property of the petitioner-temple and being Pujari of the temple he was looking after the said land. It appears that Mangha Ram, Pujari had manipulated Revenue Record and was shown subsequently as Khatedar of the land in dispute. After his death, respondents Nos. 4 to 7, inherited the land and they executed the sale deed of the said land in favour of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 19-6-1967 and 5-6-72. On behalf of the petitioner, a case was filed before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, Respondent No. 10, being Case No. 75/83 which was decided vide order dated 16th August, 1988 contained in Ex. 2 to this writ petition. Relying upon the order dated 27th May, 1967 passed by Addl. Collector treated the land in dispute as personal land of said Shri Mangha Ram. However, it is also relevant to mention that respondent No. 10 has observed in the aforesaid order that in the settlement record of Samwat 2001 i.e. 1954 the land was shown in the name of the temple and it was cultivated by Shri Mangha Ram being pujari of the temple and it was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner and Shri S. G. Ojha, for the respondents. 7. Shri Parihar has canvassed that the learned Board failed to appreciate that the acquisition of Khatedari rights in favour of Mangha Ram Pujari was in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of Sees. 16 and 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, hereinafter called the 'Act 1955' and the entry of Khatedari rights in the name of Mangha Ram Pujari was nothing but a fraudulent activity. The deity being perpetual minor cannot take care of its property. However, nobody looking after the property of the perpetual minor or disabled person, has the right to get the Khatedari rights. 8. Section 46 of the Act 1955, provides exemption in exceptional cases in case of a minor and a person incapable of cultivating his holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity. An idol/deity can fall to both the classes i.e. a minor as well as a physically disabled or infirm person and the manager or the State is under an obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or disabled person. No person can acquire Khatedari rights in the land belonging to a minor. The object is laudable and based on public policy and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property, has to show prima facie authority on behalf of and bona fides vis-a-vis the public trust, i.e. the temple. Thus, in such circumstances, the revenue as well as the administrative authorities have a legal obligation to protect interest prejudicial to the effective exercise of a permanent domain and right of property by the temples on their lands. In fact, the concession to the effect that a person cultivating the land of the temple can acquire Khatedari rights runs counter to the public policy and the basic concept that a deity is a perpetual minor and physically disabled person and his interests are to be protected. At the most, a cultivator can act as a guardian of the deity (minor) but he cannot be permitted to usurp over the rights and interests of such minor and disabled person. In the instant case, Mangha Ram being the next friend of the deity, a perpetual minor, was supposed to protect its interest. The Court failed to understand that once the present petitioner i.e. the temple has been shown as a Khatedar of the land in 1945 and the revenue record itself has shown the statement of Mangha Ram that land belonged to the temple and he was looking after it as a pujari, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial process would rip apart the edifice of justice and create a feeling of disillusionment in the minds of the people of the very law and courts. The rules of procedure have been devised as a channel or a means to render substantive or at best substantial justice which is the highest interest of man and almameter (sic) for the mankind. It is a foundation for orderly human relations. Equally the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice." 14. It is a plain and simple case of subotage of public policy and legal philosophy "Tribunal should be astute in the declaration of law or in its solemn judicial review or dispensation of justice to issue directions or mandamus against the law, constitutional comments or public policy." (State of Punjab v. G.S. Gill, 1997(6) SCC 129 : 1997 AIR SCW 2209. 15. Thus, it was a fit case, where, in the interest of justice. Board of Revenue ought not to have disturbed the order of the Appellate Authority which was based on sound principles of law and had served the cause of justice. 16. At the time of hearing, Shri S. G. Ojha referred to and relied upon the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to prevent the law from crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law." 21. Similarly in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "It is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the Social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfering where it is against the social interest. 22. In view of the above, I reach the following unescapable conclusions : I. The petitioner-temple was shown as Khatedar of the land in dispute and the Khatedari rights accrued in favour of Sri Mangha Ram Pujari would not be legal because of the application of the provisions of Section 46 of the 1955 Act. II. The provisions of Section 46 of the 1955 Act are based on public policy and have been enacted to secure a laudable object. The provisions of any other act cannot override the special protection accorded to the class of persons mentioned therein. Thus, the protection/ ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
