"Land Belongs To Deity": Rajasthan High Court Rejects 35-Yr-Old Plea Challenging Re-Entry Of Temple Land In Revenue Records

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a 35-year-old plea against an order by which the Ajmer Revenue Board "re-entered" into the records, a land on which Shri Gopalji Temple is situated, underscoring that the land in question belongs to a deity–a minor who is precluded from availing legal remedies without human help. 

Justice Avneesh Jhingan further said that based on provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Khatedari or tenancy rights of a minor's land–the idol/deity of the temple in this case–cannot be conferred to a Khudkasht tenant–who is a person who cultivates the land owned by another, or sub-tenant whether their name was entered in records or not. 

"The land belongs to temple and was accordingly entered in the revenue records. The law is well settled that the idol is a minor...," the high court said and thereafter referred to a judgment of the division bench in Murti Mandir Shri Niyamaji Laxmangarh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008) which said that deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by the courts. 

"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 said. The term Khudkasht under the Act means land in any part of the State cultivated personally by in estate holder.

It added, "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".

It was the case of the petitioners their ancestors were in cultivating possession of the land prior to Samwat (record based on Hindu calendar) 2012. Based on the request in 1980 from the Devsthan Department, a reference was made by the Collector in 1984, and the land was re-entered in the name of the temple in 1990 by the revenue board. A petition was filed against this in 1990. 

The counsel for the petitioners further argued that even based on Jamabandi Samwat 2026-29, the land was entered in the name of these ancestors. It was also submitted that the reference to re-enter the land in Temple's name was made after 13 years which should have been dismissed on grounds of delay.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that as per the Revenue Records, the land belonged to the temple since the beginning and the Jamabandi Samwat for 2026-29 was erroneously entered into the name of the petitioner's ancestors without any order from the competent authority.

The court noted that the finding recorded by the Board was that in Jamabandi for Samwat 2012-15 and 2018-21, the land-in-question was registered in the name of the temple through Pujari which remained unchallenged. It said that it was undisputed that the land-in-question was entered in the name of the temple since the beginning. 

The court underscored the protection of the minor-idol's rights more so in the present case where the "land-in-question was continuing in the revenue records in the name of temple and was changed without any basis".

"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 court said. 

After hearing the contentions the Court highlighted that the petitioners were claiming the land based on their ancestors' cultivation possession of the land, as well as the Jamabandi Samwat of 2026-29. It said that the petitioners had claimed the land by pleading that prior to 1995 the cultivating possession was of the ancestors of the petitioners

It said that such entries in Jamabandi were changed in the name of the petitioner's ancestors without any order from the competent authority and was in violation of Section 19 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Court also rejected the petitioners' argument of the reference being made with a delay and opined that Section 82 of the Act prescribed no limitation for reference and the reference had to be made within reasonable time and depended on facts of the case.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Roodaram & Ors. v the Board of Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

Click Here To Read/Download Order