RAMCHANDRA AND ORS. Vs. BINJA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dt. 22.1.15 of the Board of Revenue, whereby pending disposal of the revision petition preferred by the respondent, the effect and operation of order dt. 12.1.15 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, affirming the order dt. 16.3.09 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, pending disposal of the suit, has been stayed. The relevant facts are that the petitioners -plaintiff filed a suit under Sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") for partition of the land in question accompanied by an application under Sec. 212 of the Act read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The petitioners prayed for injunction in terms that the respondent may not raise construction over the disputed land in question and should maintain the status quo at the site. After due consideration, vide order dt. 16.3.09, the trial Court directed the parties to the proceedings not to raise any permanent construction over the land in question and to maintain the status quo at the site. The order passed by the trial Court was appealed against by the respondent before the RAA, Pali. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the RAA vide order dt. 12.1.15. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred a revision petition accompanied by stay petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition stands admitted and while issuing the notice to the petitioners herein of revision petition as also of the stay petition, by the order impugned the effect and operation of the order passed by the trial Court, affirmed by RAA stands stayed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this petition.

(2.) On 5.2.15, while issuing notices to the respondents an interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners in the following terms:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that every co -sharer has right to possession over every inch of the land and without partition of the land, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise construction thereon. Learned counsel submitted that the injunction granted by the trial Court, having affirmed by the appellate Court, the Board of Revenue in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction was not justified in staying effect and operation of the order so as to enable the respondents to raise construction over the land in question.