MUKHPAL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against judgment dated 6.8.18 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondents no.3 and 4 against the order dated 3.5.18 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sriganganagar, allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against the order of the trial court refusing to appoint receiver of the disputed lands, has been allowed and thus, the order passed by the trial court refusing to appoint receiver stands restored.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioners herein filed a suit under Sections 53, 88 and 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") accompanied by an application under Section 212 of the Act seeking temporary injunction against the respondents herein. The petitioners preferred yet another application for appointment of receiver in respect of the disputed lands. The trial court vide order dated 27.10.15 allowed the application seeking temporary injunction and directed the defendants to maintain the status quo regarding the suit lands and its revenue record, however, vide a separate order of even date, the application seeking appointment of receiver has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before RAA, Sriganganagar, which was allowed vide order dated 3.5.18 and Tehsildar, Sriganganagar was appointed receiver of the property to the extent of share of the petitioners. The respondent no. 3 and 4 herein feeling aggrieved by the order, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in interfering with the order passed by the RAA setting aside the order passed by the SDO, Sriganganagar, declining the prayer of the petitioners for appointment of receiver of the disputed lands. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have proceeded to damage/change the nature of the property and thus, to protect the property during the pendency of the lis between the parties, appointment of receiver thereof is absolutely necessary. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners stand deprived of beneficial use of their property and thus, to protect their rights, the order passed by RAA directing appointment of receiver was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that if the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order of RAA, directing appointment of the receiver cannot be interfered with, the respondents atleast deserve to be directed to furnish the cash security in terms of provisions of Section 212 of the Act.