JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This is a defendant's writ petition against the order of Sri G.S. Sial, Member, Board of Revenue dated 3.2.78 whereby a Receiver has been appointed over the disputed land in a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the order is illegal and dispossess the defendant petitioner from the land in dispute hence it should be quashed, 3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits on the other hand that the impugned order has done substantial justice between the parties hence it should not be quashed. 4. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I think it proper to quote the relevant finding of the learned Member in the order dated 3.2.78 as below :- "The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have been looking after the grove for a considerably long time and therefore to deprive them of it at one stroke is also not equitable. I would, therefore, consider that in the interest of equity and justice a receiver should be appointed to look after the property and the defendants may be required to maintain the grove as so far they have been doing. The receiver will allow them necessary expenses for the maintenance of the grove after auctioning the produce. The receiver may also apply a part of the receipt with the due approval of the trial court for the maintenance of the property and the balance will be deposited in Court till the pendency of the suit. The revision is accordingly allowed and the order of the Trial Court are modified as above." 5. In my opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant-petitioner would be evicted from the land in dispute is not correct. The possession of the defendant over the disputed land or the construction existing thereon shall continue till the decision of the suit. By the impugned order only the Commissioner has been appointed who shall auction the produce every year and spend some amount for maintenance of the grove through the defendant. In this way the defendant shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the Suit but the produce shall be auctioned every year and after allowing necessary expenses the Commissioner shall deposit the amount till the decision of the suit. In this way the defendant shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the Suit but the produce shall be auctioned every year and after allowing necessary expenses the Commissioner shall deposit the amount till the decision of the suit. 6. I think the above order has done substantial justice between the parties and needs no interference under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant-petitioner shall be evicted from the disputed land without a decree in favour of the plaintiff is wholly unjustified. It is expected that status quo regarding possession of the defendant on the spot should continue till the decision of the suit. 7. With the above observation I do not find any force in the present Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.