BIN RAJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order Annx. 3 dated 2 -12 -1985 passed by the Board of Revenue

(2.) THE petitioner is in actual physical cultivatory possession of the disputed Bera Peeple -wala situated in the Sarhad of Raipur comprising of Khasra No. 1615 measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas Chahi Aawal, Khasra No. 1616 measuring 1 biswa Gair Mumkim Bera, Khasra No. 1617 measuring 7 biswas Gair Mumkim Sada and Khasra No. 1618 measuring 8 biswas Gair Mumkin. Thus in all 6 bighas and 3 biswas of land was in possession of the petitioner since 1 -6 -1970 as mortgagee from Mohanlal. Respondent Bhagwan son of Pratapji filed a suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Jaitaran against the petitioner and others for declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit the non -petitioner Bhagwana also filed an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC for temporary injunction against the petitioner. This application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran by the order dated 14 -9 -1973 holding that plaintiff -respondent Bhagwanji has no prima facie case at all. Aggrieved against this the plaintiff -respondent Bhagwanji preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur being Revenue Appeal No. 391/76, which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 4 -5 -1979. Aggrieved against this order of the Revenue Appellate Authority non -petitioner Bhagwanji preferred a revision petition being Revision Petition No. 250/79 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer which was decided by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 2 -12 -1985. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue by the order dated 2 -12 -1985 allowed the revision petition and granted a temporary injunction in favour of Bhagwanji restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of Bhagwanji Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) NORMALLY , I would not have interfered with interlocutory order. But the writ petition has been admitted and a stay order has been granted by this Court to keep the status quo. Instead of entering into the question whether both the courts have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction and whether the Board of Revenue has properly exercised its discretion in granting the temporary injunction in favour of Bhagwanji, I deem it just and proper that instead of deciding the issue of temporary injunction I direct the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran to dispose of the suit of the respondent Bhagwanji non -petitioner No. 1, which is pending since 1973 Within a period of two mouths from today. Meanwile, the status quo, as it exists today shall be maintained.