NANAK CHAND Vs. GHISA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 23rd August, 1971. It appears that Ghisalal non-applicant No I filed a suit under sections 88/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur in respect of agriculture land comprised in khasra number 377, 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in village Badi Ka Khera Tehsil Sanganer, district Jaipur. Ghisalal also moved an application under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with O. 39, r. 1 and 2 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur in respect of the same land. The Assistant Collector, Jaipur considered the matter on 21-9-70 and directed that status quo should be maintained over the disputed land and he wanted to make the site inspection on 810-70. Subsequently the Assistant Collector inspected the land on 8-10-70 and prepared a memorandum of inspection on the same date in which he has recorded that plant of Choula were noticeable to some extent on the field while there were also plant of Moong and Bajra.He found that the crop had been uprooted from the field but uprooted crop belonged to Choula. After this the Assistant Collector, Jaipur passed an order on 12th October, 1970 appointing a receiver to manage the khasra No. in dispute. The main suit under secs. 88/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has not made any progress so far. Nanak Chand preferred an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector, Jaipur dated 12th October, 1970 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur but his appeal was dismissed and the order of Assistant Collector, Jaipur was upheld. The order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur is dated 23-8-71. The present is revision is against the appellate order.

(2.) THE two lower courts have deemed it necessary to appoint a receiver to manage khasra number 377 of 1 bigha 15 biswas situated in villaged Badi-ka-Khera Tehsil Sanganer. THE right of courts to appoint a receiver is being disputed before us in the instant case.