JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. KULVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULVEER Singh, grand son of late Sadhu Singh-present respondent no. 1 filed a suit against the present petitioner Jagraj Singh before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Anoopgarh for declaration of his right and ejectment of the present petition from the land in question under Sections 53, 88 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act" ). He also filed an appli-cation for appointment of receiver under Section 212 of the Act. The Trial Court refused to appoint receiver but ordered the present petitioners for cash security of Rs. 800/-per bigha for crop every year till the final disposal of the suit. It was also ordered that on failure to deposit the said amount, the Tehsildar shall take over the possession as receiver from the present petitioner.

(2.) THE present petitioner aggrieved by that order of cash security of Rs. 800/-per bigha for crop every year filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short "the RAA" ). THE RAA considered the fact that the petitioner came into possession of the land in question as per the will executed by Sadhu Singh grand father of the present respondent no. 1 and mutation was also effected in his name in the record of rights and the possession was also with him. Accordingly, the RAA modified the order passed by the Trial Court of cash security of Rs. 800/-per bigha for crop every year and ordered the petitioner to give security bonds instead of cash security. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent. THE impugned order dated 24. 12. 97 is at Annex. 1. Aggrieved by this order, the present respondent no. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. On 2. 1. 98, the Board of Revenue ex-parte stayed the operation of the judgment and order of RAA but later on, on an application filed by the petitioner, the Board of Revenue restored the order passed by the Trial Court by its order dated 1. 7. 98 (Annex. 2 ). This order has been challenged by the present petitioner by way of this petition which is filed only on 30. 9. 99 i. e. after a period of fourteen months.

(3.) THIS petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The scope of which is very narrow and limited. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (2) even if the Revisional Court committed error on law then also it is not open to the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227. In this case while allowing the revision, the Board of Revenue has neither committed jurisdictional error nor committed any error on law which calls for interference of this Court under Art. 227.