[2026:RJ-JP:1815] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1202/2024 Bhanwar Bai W/o Kishore Singh, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Gurunanak Colony, Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sarpanch Village Panchayat Jarkhoda, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, (Rajasthan) 2. Secretary, Village Panchayat Jarkhoda, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Rajasthan) 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi,(Raj.) 4. Ramchandra S/o Ramnarayan, 5. Sanwara S/o Khana, 6. Mahendra S/o Chhitar, 7. Khani D/o Chhitar, 8. Kanti W/o Khana, 9. Ladbai D/o Chhitar, Respondent no. 4 to 9 all are R/o Village Jarkhoda, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Review/LR/5710/2019/Bundi as well as the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision/LR/3446/2018/Bundi, whereby the learned Board of [2026:RJ-JP:1815] (2 of 5) [CW-1202/2024] Revenue upheld the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kota and order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Additional District Collector, Bundi. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner bought a land admeasuring 23 Bigha 11 Biswa in Khasra No.616 vide registered sale deed dated 19.06.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Patwari for mutation of the same but the mutation application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.01.1977 stating that the disputed land is recorded in the name of Chabutra Batarwal Ji Maharaj. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 07.12.2016 before the Additional District Collector, Bundi whereby learned Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kota assailing the order dated 31.03.2017 wherein learned Commissioner upheld the impugned order and dismissed the second appeal vide order dated 25.04.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2019 and thereafter, filed a review petition and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2020. Therefore, the petitioner filed present petition assailing all the orders passed by the learned courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned courts below have dismissed the claim of the petitioner without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring 23 Bigha 11 Biswa in Khasra No.616 situated in Village Adila, Panchayat Fatehganj (Jarkhoda) on 24.04.1973 and [2026:RJ-JP:1815] (3 of 5) [CW-1202/2024] the same was registered vide sale deed dated 19.06.1973. He further submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the land, however, when she applied for mutation, the same was rejected by the Patwari stating that the land belongs to Mandir Mafi of Chabutra Batarwal Ji Maharaj. Thus, Khatedari rights cannot be given to an individual. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. From the record of the case, it is evident that while mutation No.75 dated 05.01.1977 was denied in view of the fact that the land belongs to Mandir Mafi of Chabutra Batarwal Ji Maharaj and it is a trite law that the land belongs to deity cannot be sold or mutated in favour of an individual, therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Collector, Bundi vide order dated 31.03.2017. 6. Being aggrieved of which the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kota. 7. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kota, after considering all the facts and details and evidence on record, has reiterated the grounds of rejection and has upheld the findings given by the learned Additional District Collector, Bundi and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.04.2018. 8. Being aggrieved of both the orders, the petitioner herein has filed the Revision Petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the learned Revenue Board after considering all the arguments and record of the case has [2026:RJ-JP:1815] (4 of 5) [CW-1202/2024] reiterated the reasons of rejection and upheld the order passed by both the learned Courts below while stating that in the revenue record, the land-in-dispute is recorded in the name of Chabutra Batrawal Ji Maharaj through Pujari Nanda which reflects that the land belongs to Mandir Mafi and it is well settled law that since the land belongs to perpetual minor, therefore, any Khatedari rights cannot be given to any individual. Accordingly, rejected the revision petition vide order dated 27.05.2019. 9. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the petitioner thereafter, preferred the review petition under Section 86 of the of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the learned Board of Revenue, after rehearing the matter and on the basis of record of the case, has held that the review petition filed by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also held that there is no apparent error in the impugned order. Consequently, dismiss the review petition vide order dated 15.01.2020. 10. A bare perusal of all the impugned orders reveals that the grievance of the petitioner was duly heard and addressed by all the learned Courts below while passing the order. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned courts below erred in passing the impugned orders lacks merit and cannot be accepted. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:1815] (5 of 5) [CW-1202/2024] 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /1