{"id":150164,"date":"1964-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964"},"modified":"2017-09-03T20:01:28","modified_gmt":"2017-09-03T14:31:28","slug":"idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","title":{"rendered":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 906, \t\t 1965 SCR (1)\t 96<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nIDOL OF THAKURJI SHRI GOVIND DEOJI MAHARAJ\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/08\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  906\t\t  1965 SCR  (1)\t 96\n\n\nACT:\nThe  Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, rr. 4 and 5-\"State grant\"  in\nfavour\tof  idol-Liability  for\t \"Matmi\t dues\"-Practice-Writ\nPetition-Maintainability by affected party.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t an Idol, is the grantee of  certain  lands.\nThey  are  \"State  grants\" under r. 4 of  the  Jaipur  Matmi\nRules, 1945, having been made or recognised by the Ruler  of\nthe State.  All State grants are subject to Matmi dues under\nthe  Rules, that is, to the amount payable to the  State  by\nthe  successor of a deceased grantee, on his recognition  as\nsuch.\tThere had been changes in the person of the  Shebait\nof the idol twice, the previous incumbent dying and his\t son\nbeing recognised as the successor.  The respondent therefore\npassed\tan  order  demanding Matmi  dues  from\tthe  present\nShebait.   The\tappellant by a Writ  Petition  disputed\t the\nvalidity  of the order, but the petition was dismissed.\t  On\nappeal,\nHELD:(i) The grants in question being grants made in  favour\nof  the idol and not in favour of the Shebaits, no  question\nof the death of the grantee or his successor could arise and\nconsequently, the respondent could not claim any Matmi\tdues\nfrom the appellant. [100F-H].\n(ii)Though  the\t order for payment of Matmi  dues  had\tbeen\nnominally passed against the Shebait, as they were  intended\nto  be\tenforced  against the properties  belonging  to\t the\nappellant,  the appellant's Writ Petition was  maintainable.\n[102E-G].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1962.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 10,\t1959
\nof the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.
\n10 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
B.   K. Bhattacharya and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
\nG.   C.\t  Kasliwal,  Advocate-General  for  the\t  State\t  of
\nRajasthan,
\nK.   K. Jain and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C.
\nJ.  The\t short point of law which arises in this  appeal  is
\nwhether\t under rule 5 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules,  1945,\t the
\nappellant,  the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji  Maharaj,
\nis  liable to pay the Matmi amount in question.\t It  appears
\nthat  respondent No. 1, the Board of Revenue, had passed  an
\norder on November 6, 1956, directing that the Matalaba Matmi
\namounting  to Rs. 15,404\/14\/6 be recovered from the  Shebait
\nof the appellant temple.  The appellant disputed the
\n97<\/span>
\nvalidity of this order and filed a Writ Petition (No. 10  of
\n1957)  in  the High Court of Rajasthan contending  that\t the
\nsaid  amount  was not recoverable from the  appellant.\t The
\nHigh  Court  has  dismissed  this  writ\t petition  and\t the
\nappellant has come to this court with a certificate  granted
\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In its petition, the case for the appellant was that several
\nlands  had been granted to the appellant from time  to\ttime
\nand that these grants were made in the name of the Idol, and
\nthat  the Seva Pooja of the Idol and the management  of\t its
\nproperties was entrusted to the Goswami ever since the\tIdol
\nof  Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj was taken  to  Jaipur
\nfrom Brindaban.\t On the death of the ninth Shebait,  Goswami
\nShri  Krishna Chandra succeeded to the Shebaitship  in\t1888
\nand  continued\tto be in management as\tsuch  Shebait  until
\n1935.\tOn  his\t death, his eldest son\tGoswami\t Bhola\tNath
\nsucceeded and Seva Pooja was looked after by him during\t his
\nlifetime.   On the death of Goswami Bhola Nath in 1945,\t his
\neldest\t son  Goswami  Pradumna\t Kumar\tsucceeded   to\t the
\nShebaitship  and has been carrying on the management of\t the
\nproperties of the temple and looking after the Seva Pooja of
\nthe  Idol.  It was during the management of  Pradumna  Kumar
\nthat the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1.
\nAccording  to  this  order, Matmi has  been  sanctioned\t “in
\nfavour of Goswami Bhola Nath on the death of Krishna Chandra
\nDeo  and  in favour of Pradumna Kumar Deo on  the  death  of
\nBhola Nath” and the total amount directed in that behalf  is
\nRs.  15,404\/14\/6.   The\t appellant’s  petition\tspecifically
\naverred\t that the property in question bad been\t granted  to
\nthe  Idol itself and that the Shebaits have been  performing
\nthe  Seva Pooja of the Idol and managing the  properties  of
\nthe  temple  as such Shebaits.\tOn  these  allegations,\t the
\nappellant   prayed  that  an  appropriate  writ,  order\t  or
\ndirection should be issued prohibiting respondent No. 1\t and
\nthe  Collector, Sawai Madhopur, respondent No. 2, and  their
\nnominees  or agents from recovering or from taking any\tstep
\nfor  the recovery of any Matalaba Matmi under  the  impugned
\norder of respondent No. 1 from the petitioner’s estate.\t The
\nappellant   also  claimed  that\t an  appropriate  order\t  or
\ndirection  or  writ  should  be\t issued\t quashing  the\tsaid
\nimpugned  order as well as the prior order dated  April\t 20,
\n1954 on which the latter order was based.\n<\/p>\n
Respondents 1, 2 and the State of Rajasthan which was joined
\nas respondent No. 3 disputed the appellant’s claim and\tmade
\nseveral pleas.\tIn regard to the allegation of the appellant
\nthat  the  properties in question had been  granted  to\t the
\nIdol, the
\n98<\/span>
\nrespondents’  reply merely, stated that allegation  was\t not
\nadmitted as the documents regarding the original grants were
\nnot  traceable.\t  The respondents urged\t that  the  Matalaba
\nMatmi  had been properly levied by respondent No. 1  against
\nthe  Shebaits  and that the appellants\tgrievance  that\t its
\nproperties  were not liable to pay the said amount  was\t not
\nwell-founded.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court has proceeded to deal with this\t dispute  on
\nthe  basis  that the appellant, the Idol  of  Thakurji\tShri
\nGovind\tDeoji Maharaj was the owner of the properties.\t It,
\nhowever, took the view that since the Shebaits were managing
\nthe  properties\t and  performing  the  Seva  Pooja  of\t the
\nappellant  Idol,  Shebaitship  itself  being  property\t the
\nrelevant  Rules\t applied, because  the\tbeneficial  interest
\nwhich the Shebaits held could be said to amount to a  ‘State
\ngrant’ within the meaning of r.4(1). On this view, the\tHigh
\nCourt  came to the conclusion that what,is  contemplated  in
\nthe  Matmi  Rules is the succession to a Shebait.   In\tthat
\nconnection,  the  High Court referred to the fact  that\t the
\npredecessors  of the present Shebait had applied  for  Matmi
\nand  the  present  Shebait himself had\tsimilarly  filed  an
\napplication  in that behalf.  According to the\tHigh  Court,
\nthe plain meaning of the definition of ‘Matmi’ is that it is
\npayable\t at  the time of the recognition of  the  succeeding
\nShebait.   In  this  connection\t the  High  Court  has\talso
\nobserved  that the writ petition had been filed by the\tIdol
\nand though the Shebait appeared as the agent of the Idol, it
\nwas  not a petition filed by the Shebait as such, and  since
\nthe impugned order had been passed against the Shebait,\t the
\ngrievance  made by the Idol was technically  not  justified.
\nEven so, since the High Court was inclined to take the\tview
\nthat by virtue of the beneficial interest which the Shebaits
\nhave  in the property of the temple the impugned  order\t had
\nbeen  properly passed, the High Court considered the  merits
\nof the writ petition filed by the appellant and dismissed it
\nwith  costs.   The  main  judgment  has\t been  delivered  by
\nBhandari  J.  Modi.  J. has agreed with the  conclusions  of
\nBhandari  J.  and  in a brief order  he\t has  indicated\t the
\nprincipal grounds on which his conclusions rested.  Modi  J.
\nalso held that it was not possible for the Court to help the
\nappellant  in view of the Rules as they stand.\t He  thought
\nthat  the only relief which the appellant can secure  is  by
\nmoving\trespondent  No. 3 to exercise its  discretion  under
\nclause (xvii) of r.20 and get exemption from the payment  of
\nthe  amount in question.  It is against this  decision\tthat
\nthe appellant has come to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  Jaipur Matmi Rules came into force in 1945 and some  of
\nthe   relevant\tprovisions  of\tthese  Rules  must  now\t  be
\nconsidered
\n99<\/span>
\nRule  4 contains definitions.  Rule, 4(1) defines  a  ‘State
\ngrant’\tas  meaning a grant of an interest in land  made  or
\nrecognised  by the Ruler of the Jaipur State and includes  a
\njagir,\tmuamla, suba, istimrar, chakoti, badh,\tbhom,  inam,
\ntankha,\t  udak,\t milak,\t aloofa,  khangi,  bhog\t  or   other
\ncharitable  or\treligious  grant, a  site  granted  free  of
\npremium\t for  a residence or a garden, or other grant  of  a
\nsimilar nature.\t Rule 4(2) defines a person holding a  State
\ngrant as a ‘State Grantee’.  Rule 4(3) refers to ‘Matmi’ and
\ndefines it in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Matmi”  means  mutation of the  name  of\t the
\n\t      successor to a State grant on the death of the
\n\t      last  holder.  The person in whose name  matmi
\n\t      is sanctioned is called the “matmidar” and the
\n\t      sum payable by him on his recognition as\tsuch
\n\t      by the State is called “matalba matmi”.
\n\t      Rule 4 (4) defines ‘Nazarana’ thus:
\n\t      “Nazrana”\t is the sum payable, in addition  to
\n\t      matalba  matmi,  by  an adopted son  or  by  a
\n\t      successor\t other\tthan a\tdirect\tmale  lineal
\n\t      descendant of the last holder”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  will thus be noticed that under r. 4 (1) a\tState  grant
\nmeans,\tinter alia, a grant of an interest in land  made  by
\nthe  Ruler of the Jaipur State and it includes a  charitable
\nor  religious  grant.\tThe High Court has  dealt  with\t the
\npresent\t writ petition on the basis that the grant has\tbeen
\nmade  in  favour of the Idol.  In fact, the  two  grants  to
\nwhich  our  attention was invited fully support\t this  view.
\nThe  copy of the Patta dated 21st Ramzan St. 1123  (Amnexure
\nExbt.  4)  shows  that\tthe  villages  Dehra  and  Salampukh
\nBalahadi in Pargana Hindaun Baseshu Prasad were allotted for
\n“Punya Bhog” of Thakurji Sriji.\t Similarly, the copy of\t the
\nPatta  dated  Katik Badi 8 of Smt. 1808 (Annexure  Exbt.  5)
\nshows that the village Govindpur Bas Hathyod Tehsil  Oasaba,
\nSawai  Jaipur was allotted for the Bhog (food offerings)  of
\nThakurji Sriji.\t Therefore, we feel no difficulty in dealing
\nwith  the. present appeal on the same basis which  the\tHigh
\nCourt  has adopted in its judgment.  The grants in  question
\nwere grants made in favour of the Idol and not in favour  of
\nthe  Shebaits.\tIt is well-known that a religious grant\t can
\nbe made either in favour of the Idol as such or may be\tmade
\nto  a  person burdening the grantee with the  obligation  to
\nrender\trequisite services to the temple.  It is  with,\t the
\nfirst  category\t of  grants that we are\t concerned  in\tthis
\nappeal.\t  The  grant is one to the Idol and if\tthe  Shebait
\nmanages the properties granted to the Idol, it is by virtue
\n100<\/span>
\nof  his\t Shebaitship and not because he is in any  manner  a
\ngrantee from the State as such.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  5 provides that all State grants shall be\t subject  to
\nMatmi with certain exceptions.\tWith these exceptions we are
\nnot concerned.\tRule 6 provides for the submission of  death
\nreports\t by persons claiming succession to a grant.  Rule  7
\nprescribes  the penalty for the successor’s failure to\tmake
\nthe report.  Rule 8 provides for attachment of State  grants
\npending\t Matmi.\t  Rule 9 provides for the  Bhograj  expenses
\nduring. attachment of a bhog grant.  Under Rule 12, a  claim
\nfor  succession to a State grant, if not made within a\tyear
\nof the last holder’s death, shall be rejected as time-barred
\nand the grant resumed.\tRule 13 deals ,with the question  of
\nthe  persons  entitled to succeed.  Rule 14 deals  with\t the
\nsame  problem  in  the\tabsence\t of  a\tdirect\tmale  lineal
\ndescendant.   The proviso to rule 14 lays down, inter  alia,
\nthat in the case of a grant for the maintenance of a temple,
\nother than a lain temple, it shall be within the  discretion
\nof the Government to select as successor any one of the male
\nlineal descendants of the original grantee, with due  regard
\nto his suitability for the performance of worship.  With the
\nrest  of  the  Rules we are not\t concerned  in\tthe  present
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  which arises is, can the grant  made  to\t the
\nappellant be said to attract the operation of rule 5 ?\tRule
\n5  prescribes  for  the levy of Matmi in  respect  of  State
\ngrants\tand  if the said rule applies, the  appellant  would
\nhave  no case.\tIn deciding the question as to\twhether\t the
\nappellant’s  estate is liable to pay Matmi under r. 5 it  is
\nnecessary to examine the nature of this Matmi, and find\t out
\nwhether\t a  claim in respect of it can be made\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.   We\t have  already\tnoticed\t that  Matmi   means
\nmutation  of the name of the successor to a State  grant  on
\nthe  death  of the last holder.\t It is obvious that  in\t the
\ncase of a grant to the Idol or temple as such there would be
\nno  question about the death of the grantee and,  therefore,
\nno  question  about  its  successor.  An  Idol\twhich  is  a
\njuridical person is not subject to death, because the  Hindu
\nconcept\t is  that  the Idol lives for ever, and\t so,  it  is
\nplainly impossible to predicate about the Idol which is\t the
\ngrantee\t in the present case that it has died at  a  certain
\ntime  and the claims of a successor fall to  be\t determined.
\nThat being so, it seems difficult to hold that any claim for
\nMatmi  can  be\tmade against the appellant,  and  that\tmust
\nclearly\t lead  to  the\tinference  that\t no  amount  can  be
\nrecovered  from the properties belonging to the Idol on\t the
\nground that Matmi is claimable
\n101<\/span>
\nagainst\t a  person  who claims to be the  successor  of\t the
\nShebait of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Advocate-General was unable  to  dispute\tthis
\nposition.   He, however, attempted to argue that all  grants
\npertaining  to\tthe  properties of the\tappellant  were\t not
\nbefore the Court, and so, it may not be proper to proceed on
\nthe basis that all the properties of the appellant have been
\ngranted\t to  the  appellant in its own\tname.\tWe  are\t not
\nimpressed by this argument.  We have already noticed that  a
\nspecific  averment was made by the appellant in paragraph  3
\nof  its writ petition that all the State grants made to\t the
\nappellant  from time to time were in the name of  the  Idol,
\nand though the, respondents did not specifically admit\tthis
\naverment,  they pleaded that since the\tdocuments  regarding
\nthe  original grants were not traceable, they  required\t the
\nappellant  to prove its case in that behalf.  The  appellant
\nproduced two grants and it appears from the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court that the matter was proceeded with on the  basis
\nthat  the ldol is the grantee of all the  properties.\tThat
\nbeing so, we do not think it is open to the Advocate-General
\nnow  to\t contend that some of the properties may  have\tbeen
\ngranted\t  to  the  Shebaits  no\t doubt\tburdened  with\t the
\nobligation to perform the services of the Idol.
\nThe High Court appears to have taken the view that because a
\nShebait\t has  some  kind of a  beneficial  interest  in\t the
\nproperty  of  the temple, that\tbeneficial  interest  itself
\ncould  be treated as a State grant and it is on\t this  basis
\nthat  the High Court held that the impugned order passed  by
\nrespondent No. 1 was valid.  In the present case we are\t not
\nconcerned  to enquire whether for recognising  a  succeeding
\nShebait\t any Matmi can be recovered by the respondents;\t but
\nsince the High Court has laid emphasis on the fact that\t the
\nShebait has a beneficial interest in the properties  granted
\nto  the appellant, it is necessary to point out that  though
\nthe  Shebait by virtue of the special position attaching  to
\nShebait\t under\tthe  Hindu law\tcan  claim  some  beneficial
\ninterest,  that\t interest is derived not by  virtue  of\t the
\ngrant made by the State, but by virtue of the provisions  of
\nHindu  law,  or custom, or usage of the temple\tor  locality
\nwhere the temple is situated.  In Tilkayat Shri Govindalalji
\nMaharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1) the “position
\nof  the\t Shebaits  was\tincidentally  considered,  and\t the
\nobservations made by Mr. Justice Ameer Ali in Vidva  Varuthi
\nThirtha\t Swamigal  v.  Balusami Ayyar (2)  were\t cited\twith
\napproval.   “In almost every case”, said Mr.  Justice  Ameer
\nAli,  “the  Mahant  is\tgiven the right to  a  part  of\t the
\nusufruct, the mode of
\n(1) [1964] 1 S.C.R. 561.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 48 I.A. 392, 311.\n<\/p>\n
102<\/span><\/p>\n
enjoyment and the amount of the usufruct depending again  on
\nusage  and custom.  In no case was the property conveyed  to
\nor  vested in him, nor is he a trustee in the English  sense
\nof  the term, though in view of the obligations\t and  duties
\nresting on him, he is answerable as a trustee in the general
\nsense  for  mal-administration.” Therefore, it seems  to  us
\nthat  the  High\t Court\twas in error  in  holding  that\t the
\nbeneficial  interest  of  the  Shebaits\t in  the  properties
\ngranted to the appellant amounted to a State grant, and\t so,
\nthe  impugned  order was perfectly  valid.   The  incidental
\neffect\tof  the conclusions reached by the  High  Court\t may
\nperhaps\t be taken to be that the order passed by  respondent
\nNo.  I being valid, the amount in question can be  recovered
\nfrom  the  properties  of the appellant.   That\t is  why  we
\nthought it necessary to clarify the position in law on\tthis
\npoint.\n<\/p>\n
In  fact, by Civil Misc.  Petition No. 1081 of 1964  it\t has
\nbeen brought to our notice by the appellant that it had made
\na compensation claim because lands granted to the  appellant
\nhad  been resumed by the State of Rajasthan by\tnotification
\nNo.  F.(388)\/  REV\/1.A\/53  dated Jan. 1, 1959  and  that  an
\nannual\tsum  by\t way  of  annuity  to  the  Deity  had\tbeen
\nsanctioned  by the State of Rajasthan under its order  dated
\nApril 24, 1962.\t This order has, however, directed that\t the
\namount\tof  Rs.\t 15,404\/14\/6  which  has  been\tordered\t  by
\nrespondent  No. 1 to be recovered by way of Matmi should  be
\ndeducted  and that, it is urged before us by the  appellant,
\ncannot be done.\t This fact clearly shows that the  appellant
\nis justified in apprehending that though the order of  Matmi
\ndues has been nominally passed against the present  Shebait,
\nit  may be enforced against the properties belonging to\t the
\nappellant.   Since we have held that the properties  granted
\nto the appellant constitute State grants under r. 4(1),\t but
\ndo  not\t become liable to pay Matmi dues under r.  4(3),  we
\nmust  hold that the appellant’s writ petition was  justified
\ninasmuch   as\tit  asked  for\tan   appropriate   direction
\nrestraining  the  respondents and their nominees  or  agents
\nfrom recovering the said amount from the appellant’s estate.
\nTherefore,  prayer made by the appellant in paragraph  16(1)
\nof  its\t writ petition must be allowed.\t Since\twe  are\t not
\nconcerned   with  the  validity\t of  the  order\t passed\t  by
\nrespondent No. 1 against the present Shebait, we propose  to
\nexpress\t no  opinion in regard to the merits of\t the  prayer
\ncontained in paragraph 16(2) of the writ petition.
\nThe  result is, the appeal is allowed, the order  passed  by
\nthe  High  Court  is  set aside\t and  the  appellant’s\twrit
\npetition is allowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
103<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 906, 1965 SCR (1) 96 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: IDOL OF THAKURJI SHRI GOVIND DEOJI MAHARAJ Vs. RESPONDENT: BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER & OTHERS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIdol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2930,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\",\"name\":\"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964","datePublished":"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964"},"wordCount":2930,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964","name":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji ... vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, ... on 24 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T14:31:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/idol-of-thakurji-shri-govind-deoji-vs-board-of-revenue-rajasthan-on-24-august-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Idol Of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji … vs Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, … on 24 August, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}