The Rajasthan High Court has upheld that under the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 ("the Act"), Hindu idols (deities) are eligible to hold land as Jagir only if the land is cultivated by the Shebait/Pujari for the deity, either personally or through hired labor or servants.

This condition ensures protection from resumption or acquisition under the provisions of the Act.

The Court stated that if the land was given for cultivation to a tenant or cultivated through a tenant, it would then become the khatedari (ownership) of the tenant. In such cases, the tenant would have direct relations with the state concerning the land.

The division bench consisting of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas heard an appeal filed by a khatedar (tenant) regarding a piece of land. A single judge had previously directed the removal of the appellant's name from the land records and the recording of the name of Doli Banam Mandir Charbhujaji, which adversely impacted the appellant's tenancy rights.

The appellant received no relief from the appellate authorities. Dissatisfied with these decisions, the appellant filed a petition before the Court, which was subsequently dismissed. Therefore, the appellant has now filed the present appeal.

The counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant was cultivating the land as a tenant, the legal consequences under the Act would grant the appellant tenancy rights, thereby making them a khatedar. The counsel cited the full bench case of Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., which addressed the rights of individuals cultivating land belonging to a deity as tenants.

Based on this observation, the court ordered that in cases where the land was cultivated by a tenant, the name of the Hindu idol (deity) must be removed from the land revenue records. The Shebait/Pujari would have no right to claim the land as khatedar in such circumstances.

On the contrary, the state argued that the revenue records clearly indicated that the appellant was engaged to cultivate the land on behalf of the deity and not independently. Therefore, according to the state, even after the Act came into force, such a person could not claim any khatedari or tenancy rights against the deity.

After examining the records and considering the full bench decision of the Court, the Court agreed with the established legal position. In this context, the Court observed that an inquiry was necessary to determine whether the appellant was cultivating the disputed land as a tenant or as a laborer hired or employed by the Shebait/Pujari.

It was held that if it was found that the appellant was cultivating the land as a tenant, he would acquire the status of a tenant. However, if it was determined that he was cultivating the land as a laborer hired or employed by the Shebait/Pujari, then he would not be entitled to be recorded as khatedar.

Accordingly, all the contested orders were overturned, and the sub-divisional officer was instructed to conduct the necessary inquiry.

Case Title: Joga Ram v the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors.