All are Residents Of Karauli, Tehsil And District Karauli v. Thakurji Sitaramji Virajman Mandir Qila Utgir Village

----Petitioners-Defendants Versus

1. Thakurji Sitaramji Virajman Mandir Qila Utgir Village Gota, Sub-Tehsil Karanpur, Tehsil Sapotra Through Its Administrator And Manager Brijbihari S/o Durgalal, Resident Of Karauli, Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) ...Plaintiff-Non-Petitioner

2. Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Krishnanand Sharma, Resident Of Qila Utgir, Village Chodiyakhata, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli. ---Defendants/-Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17639/2018

1. Kalyan Prasad S/o Bholanath (Deceased) Through Legal Representative, 1/1. Raju S/o Kalyan Prasad, 1/2. Vimla D/o Kalyan Prasad, 1/3. Shimla D/o Kalyan Prasad, 1/4. Seela D/o Kalyan Prasad, All are Residents Of Karauli, Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioners/Plaintiffs Versus

1. Thakurji Sitaramji Virajman Mandir Qila Utgir Village [2025:RJ-JP:4502] (2 of 5) [CW-17634/2018] Gota, Sub - Tehsil Karanpur, Tehsil Sapotara Through Its Administrator And Manager Brijbihari S/o Durgalal, Resident Of Karauli, Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) ...Defendant-Non-Petitioner

2. Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Krishnanand Sharma, Resident Of Qila Utgir, Village Chodiyakhata, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli ---Defendant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 03/02/2025 Since, these writ petitions share similar facts and common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. These writ petitions arise out of judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, “BoR”) whereby, the appeals preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction and the respondent no.1, Thakurji Sitaramji Virajman Mandir, filed a suit for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction against each other qua the same agricultural land comprising of khasra no.36 measuring 26 bigha 10 biswa, kharsa no.37 measuring 10 bigha 7 biswa and khasra no.38 measuring 7 bigha 14 biswa situated in Village Gota, Tehsil Sapotra, Circle [2025:RJ-JP:4502] (3 of 5) [CW-17634/2018] Maharajpura, District Karauli. The petitioners came out with the case that the aforesaid land is entered in their khatedari in the revenue record and they are in its possession in which the respondent no.1 wanted to interfere. Therefore, they prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 filed a suit with the plea that prior to recording the subject land in the khatedari of the petitioners, it was recorded in its khatedari and during the settlement operation carried out in Samvat 2015, it was erroneously recorded in the khatedari of the petitioners without any authority of law. The Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sapotra (Karauli) (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’), vide its judgment and decree and dated

12.03.2004, held that prior to the Samvat 2015, the subject land was recorded in the khatedari of the respondent no.1-temple and the settlement department, without any authority, altered the khatedari in favour of the petitioners. It was further held that the subject land was in possession of the petitioners. In view thereof, while dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners, the suit filed by the respondent no.1 was partly decreed declaring it to be khatedar/kashtkar of the subject land. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was assailed both by the petitioners and the respondent no.1. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 and a decree of permanent injunction was passed in its favour restraining the petitioners from interfering with the use and occupation of the subject land by the respondent no.1. The two appeals preferred thereagainst by the petitioners have been [2025:RJ-JP:4502] (4 of 5) [CW-17634/2018] dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment impugned dated 06.12.2017. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that findings of the learned Revenue Courts below are perverse and against the material on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2017 be quashed and set aside, suit filed by them be decreed and the suit filed by the respondent no.1 be dismissed. Heard. Considered. There is a concurrent finding of facts by the three Revenue Courts that prior to recording the subject land in the khatedari of the petitioners in Samvat 2015, it was recorded in the khatedari of the respondent no.1-temple and the settlement authority changed the khatedari without any authority of law. It is trite law that during settlement operation, entries in the revenue record cannot be changed without any authority of law. Despite opportunity, learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate the rights based whereupon, the khatedari of the subject land was changed in their favour during the settlement operation carried out in the Samvat 2015. With regard to claim of the petitioners as to the subject land being in their possession, relying upon the statutory provisions and the precedential law, it has been held that the deity being a perpetual minor, it cannot cultivate the agricultural land personally and any person cultivating the land on its behalf cannot claim either khatedari rights or the possessary title. The findings so recorded by the Revenue Courts are based on sound judicial [2025:RJ-JP:4502] (5 of 5) [CW-17634/2018] principles and do not require any interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three Revenue Courts based on appreciation of evidence on record and the established legal principles suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. DIKSHA /17-18 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J