CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter has come up for orders for modification on 23-5-1988. I directed that the matter itself may be posted for orders today so that the petition itself shall be disposed of after hearing the Counsel for parties. I have heard the Counsel on both sides. The revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The order is dated 30th April, 1988 and is passed on IA. No. 3. I. A. No. 3 was filed by the appellant before the Appellate authority who is respondent-5 in this proceeding. ( 2 ) THAT application was an application purported to be one made under Order 40 rule 1 of the C. P. C. seeking appointment of a receiver in respect of the disputed land on the ground that the revision petitioner who claimed to be the owner of the land was disturbing the cultivation and proper management of the cocoanut garden and therefore without the protection of the Court, he could not continue to carry on the act of management of the property in dispute and as such the Appellate Authority, should appoint a receiver. ( 3 ) THE revision petitioner-owner filed his objections inter alia contending that the land Tribunal apart from rejecting the application of the appellant - 5th respondent had also recorded a finding that as on 1-3-1974 he was not in possession of the land. On the other hand, the Land Tribunal had recorded a finding that every thing pointed towards the revision petitioner being in possession of the land since purchase of the land in the year 1972 as evidenced by the record of rights entry for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. ( 4 ) DESPITE objections filed the Appellate authority proceeded to appoint the Tahsildar as receiver of the land in dispute, before further proceeding to dispose of the tenant's appeal against the rejection of his application for occupancy rights on the sole ground that it is a fit case to appoint a receiver to the disputed land in order to safeguard any damage to the disputed land and crops standing on the said land. ( 5 ) WITHOUT receiving any form of evidence to come to the conclusion that the property or the standing crops thereon had in any way been damaged by any of the parties, the Appellate Authority has passed the order. Beyond the bare allegation in the application, the appellant-5th respondent did not produce any evidence of damage done to the crops or the manner of interference. Strangely enough, before reaching that conclusion the Appellate Authority had this to say that it was difficult to believe that the appellant came in possession of the disputed lands in the year 1962 for the reason that the disputed lands were taken over by the Government between 1940 and 1973. ( 6 ) THERE is no specific power conferred upon the Appellate Authority to pass an order appointing a receiver as has been done in the case of the Land Tribunal under Section 48c of the Act. In accordance with Rule 14. of the Karnataka Appellate Authority rules, 1976, the Appellate Authority is empowered to entertain interlocutory applications. It also provides for the form in which the application should be made and signed. Rule 27 of the Rules provides that the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable for matters which have not been specifically provided for by the Rules or by the Act. In the result, this Court has to hold that the receiver has been appointed in purported exercise of the power of the Appellate authority under Order 40 Rules l (a) to (c) of the C. P. C. which is as follows:"appointment of receivers- 1. (1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order- (a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree; (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property, (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and (d) it is seen from the language employed, the court or the Appellate Authority can only exercise its jurisdiction to appoint a receiver particularly to dispossess a person who is already in possession only when it is just and convenient and not otherwise. ( 7 ) IF an findings recorded the appellant before the Appellate Authority was not in possession, question of his management of the disputed land being disturbed did not arise. ( 7 ) IF an findings recorded the appellant before the Appellate Authority was not in possession, question of his management of the disputed land being disturbed did not arise. It was likely, the very fact that he sought appointment of the receiver showed that he was not in possession. The finding recorded by the Land Tribunal was also to the effect that he could never have been in possession. Overlooking these facts, the Appellate Authority totally misdirected itself to the facts of the case and decided to appoint a receiver. I am therefore satisfied that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction and also exercised jurisdiction illegally to pass the order sought to be revised in this proceeding. ( 8 ) DESPITE the order being interlocutory, this Court as an exception, will interfere when it is demonstrable that the order in question is ex facie unjust. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ( 9 ) THE Appellate Authority shall procsed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously as no serious damage could possibly be done to a cocoanut garden. The owner or somebody else will not cut and take away all the trees. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of this order. ( 10 ) A copy of this order will be communicated to the Appellate Authority forthwith. --- *** --- .