DHANNI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are that one Mst. Moharo wife of Kajodi filed a suit No.15/1999 under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') against 13 defendants including defendants Nos. 9 to 13 all sons of Khillu (herein petitioners). THE said suit was decreed by the court of Assistant Collector, Deeg wherein it was declared that the sale-deed dated 03.01.2001 in favour of defendants No.9 to 13 was nonest and the said defendants were restrained by way of a permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff Mst. Moharo to the extent she was entitled to under the order dated 09.06.2004. THE defendants Nos.9 to 13 were also restrained from transferring the property in dispute which they had purchased under sale-deed dated 03.01.2001 to any other person. Aggrieved of the judgment and degree dated 09.06.2004, passed by the Assistant Collector, Deeg, the defendants Nos.9 to 13 in the suit, namely Dhanni, Chirmal, Maniram, Charan Singh and Karan Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur (hereinafter 'RAA). On the matter coming up on an application for interim relief under Section 212 of the Act of 1955, the RAA Bharatpur vide its order dated 24.06.2004 dismissed the said application for interim relief and found that the defendants' application having been dismissed earlier, no case for interim relief under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 was made out. Aggrieved of the order 24.06.2004, the appellants Dhanni and Ors. detailed above moved before the Board of Revenue under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 and vide order dated 22.12.2011, the Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal primarily on the ground that from the record of the courts below particularly the first appellate court it appeared that the appellants Dhanni & Ors. were not in possession of the land in dispute and not entitled to any indulgence. Dhanni & Ors. have challenged the order dated 22.12.2011 before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that the Board of Revenue has wrongly recorded the factum of the petitioners not being in possession and in fact the Board of Revenue had itself on 05.07.2004 directed an order of status quo. It is submitted that there was no change in circumstances for the Board of Revenue to take a different view seven years down in the line and vacate the ex-parte interim order dated 05.07.2004.