JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition no order of Court or Tribunal has been challenged and what has been prayed for is that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from 10 bighas of agricultural land, residential house, both situated in village Sikorri, Tehsil - Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur and the matters pending in the revenue Courts be transferred to any judicial/civil court. Originally, Shri Natthi Singh, the then Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, was made a party-respondent to the writ petition, but since later on he ceased to be the Minister, an application has been filed that his name may be deleted from the array of the respondents. Before we proceed to dispose of this case at the admission stage, some facts relating to the events till today in respect of proceedings which took place in this writ petition may be stated. 2. Under order dated February 14. 1991, in the presence of Mr. S.L. Yadav, Advocate. Mr. M.1. Khan Addl. Advocated General, Mr. R.D. Rastogi and Mr. Biri Singh Advocates, Hon'ble Chief Justice had constituted this Bench to dispose of all the four cases. The four cases were other wise to be heard by the Single Bench. Besides this, It appears from the order of the Chief Justice that against request was made by the learned counsel for the parties and the Hon'ble Chief Justice on their join request has referred all the four cases, the present writ petition, as well as bail applications and Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for disposal to this Bench, Before making the aforesaid joint request before hon'ble Chief Justice in the Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (No. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1436/1990 Devki Rani v. State of Rajasthan at page 18, para 29, the petitioner has prayed that ".... the hearing of the writ petition No. 3280/90 along with the above S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2526/90 and 3052/90 deserves to be heard by a Bench not constituted by Hon'ble S/Shri V.S. Dave J. and N.L. Tibrewal J. Under the aforesaid exceptional circumstances specially in the light of the allegations alleged in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. not Known/1990. the hearing of the writ petition No. 3280/90 along with the above S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2526/90 and 3052/90 deserves to be heard by a Bench not constituted by Hon'ble S/Shri V.S. Dave J. and N.L. Tibrewal J. Under the aforesaid exceptional circumstances specially in the light of the allegations alleged in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. not Known/1990. In view of the above mentioned extremely exceptional facts and circumstances of the above mentioned case this in most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to..." Even when the case came up before this Bench of February 21, 1991, for the first time Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner had not made a request that this case along with three other case should not be heard by a Bench to which one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) is a member, because the said Judge on earlier occasion made exception so far as the cases of S.L. Yaday. Advocate is concerned. On February 21, 1991 what was prayed by Mr. Yadav was that some S.L.P. has been filed in the Supreme Court and he was expecting some orders from the Supreme Court in that S.L.P. We, therefore, adjourned the case for a week to enable the petitioner to bring any order from the Supreme Court. The case then came up before us on March 5, 1991 on which date also Shri Yadav was present but he did not make any request that this case along with other three cases should not be heard to March 6, 1991 and it was ordered that the case will be taken up at 10.30 a.m. or after the order cases. The case then came up before us on March 6, 1991, and on that date instead of four cases, only three were shown in the cause list. On the request of the parties. the Reader was directed to get the fourth case listed in the supplementary cause list, but as the file was tagged with the other files which was not noticed, an attempt was made to trace the file, but since it could not be traced in the office as it was tagged with the other files, the Miscellaneous Petition could not be listed in the supplementary cause list. On march 6, 1991 Mr. Yadav made an objection that one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) should not hear his cases. On march 6, 1991 Mr. Yadav made an objection that one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) should not hear his cases. Under a detailed order dated March 6, 1991, his request was declined and the order speaks for itself. If will be proper to state that Mr. Yadav could not dispute when it was brought to his notice that after the order dated November 27, 1989, was made by one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1771/1989, that no exception in such cases of Mr. Yadav shall be made which have been decided by M.B. Sharma J. on earlier occasions, as such cases are to be disposed of by the same judges, in a murder Misc. Bail application bail was allowed to the petitioner represented by none-else but Shri Yaday. It was observed in that order, a part of which has been extracted in the order dated March 6, 1991 that it is on the request of Mr. Yadav that M.B. Sharma J. had made the exception though there were absolutely no valid reasons. But because Mr. Yadav made a request that his cases should not be heard by M.P. Sharma j. said exception was made. M.B. Sharma J. had granted bail in a case in which earlier some other advocate appeared but bail was rejected and later on Mr. Yadav appeared, the bail was granted. The cases are decided on merits. It appears to be modus operandi of Mr. Yadav that he tries to create circumstances in a Bench/Benches so that either at his request or otherwise exception of his cases is made. That is why there have been exceptions of few judges in cases of Shri Yaday. There are always such parties who know the views of a Judge in bails and other type of cases, may feel that it may not be possible to get a favourable order from a Bench of that Judge, They then engage the advocate in whose case reception has been made. This is misuse and is not a healthy practice. There are always such parties who know the views of a Judge in bails and other type of cases, may feel that it may not be possible to get a favourable order from a Bench of that Judge, They then engage the advocate in whose case reception has been made. This is misuse and is not a healthy practice. One of us (M.B. Sharma J.) now feels that no except of cases of Shri Yadav should be made and should have been made and therefore the order to that effect that cases of Shri Yadav should bot be listed before M.B. Sharma J. stands with-drawn and it is for him to appear or not to appear before M.B. Sharma J. and the proper thing will be that if a person does not want to appear before a particular Judge, he should refuse to accept the brief, rather than to accept it and than try to get an order of exception of the Judge. The order dated November 27, 1989 passed by one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) which has been extracted in the earlier order dated March 6, 1991, is self evident on this aspect of the matter. 3. On March 6, 1991, under a detailed order the request of Mr. Yadav that the Bench of which one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) is a member should not hear his cases, was declined. His request that the petitioner has filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court and time should be granted, was also declined. Ordinarily this Court never declines such a request, but it was in the facts and circumstances of this case in which it appears that an exparte stay order was obtained, application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India was pending. Mr. Yadav was avoiding arguing the case on one pretext or the other, the said request was declined. 4. On March 6, 1991, this Bench had asked Mr. Yadav that we will first prefer to hear arguments in the writ petition on an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, but he insisted that he will argue the 482 Cr. 4. On March 6, 1991, this Bench had asked Mr. Yadav that we will first prefer to hear arguments in the writ petition on an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, but he insisted that he will argue the 482 Cr. P.C. petition a case which was not shown in the cause list, for which, though we ordered to get it listed in supplementary cause list, but since the file was not traceable in the office as it was tagged with other files of the petitioner, the said case could not be listed. We asked him to argue the case under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and he argued for quite some time. It may be stated that two orders dated March 6, 1991 will speak for themselves. 5. The case came up on March 11, 1991 and on that day all the four cases were shown in the casus list but Mr. Yadav did not start his arguments and gave out that he has moved the chief justice or shall move the Chief Justice to change the Bench. We allowed time till 2 p.m. but Mr. Yadav could not bring any order to change the Bench and gave out that it has been told to him that he should make such a mention to the court not to decide his cases. We had already declined his request. We asked Mr. Yadav to argue the case on meths but Mr. Yadav said that time should be granted to him to obtain orders from the Supreme Court. His prayer was declined. Mr. Yadav refused to argue the case. We then asked learned counsel for the respondents to argue the case. Than Mr. Yadav left the court. We then started hearing arguments in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition was filed on August 3, 1990 and on the same day Hon'ble I.S. Israni J. ordered issue of show cause notice and also ordered on the stay application that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. In the original writ petition, neither Girraj, father of Arami, husband of the petitioner Devki Rani who is recorded khatedar of agricultural land in dispute was arrayed as a respondent nor-one of his two sons, namely Daya Ram was, arrayed as party respondent. In the original writ petition, neither Girraj, father of Arami, husband of the petitioner Devki Rani who is recorded khatedar of agricultural land in dispute was arrayed as a respondent nor-one of his two sons, namely Daya Ram was, arrayed as party respondent. An application was filed Girraj and Daya Ram to be impleaded as party respondent which was allowed by D.L. Mehta J. under his order dated August 31. 1990 It. Appears from the order dated February 7, 1991 that Mr. S.L. Yadav Advocate for the petitioner was present along with advocates for some of the non Petitioners. The Learned Judge ordered that "Let this case be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on tomorrow i.e. 8.2.91" It is not knwn how the aforesaid order was recorded that the case may be placed before the Chief Justice. May be that objection might have been taken by any of the parties and it was given out by Mr. R.D. Rastogi and Mr. Biri Singh that objection was taken by Mr. Yadav that justice Israni should not hear this case. the case was listed before the Chief Justice on February 8, 1991 and it appears that on that day Mr. Yadav was not present. The case was shown in the supplementary cause list. Hon'ble Chief Justice dismissed the writ petition under his order dated February 8, 1991 on merits. Shri Yadav made an application for recalling the said order and the Chief justice on February 14, 1991, recalled his aforesaid earlier order and constituted this Bench for the disposal of the case as well as three other cases and as said earlier, it was on the joint request of till advocates for the parties. 7. It will appear from the above facts in this case out of the Judges sitting at Jaipur Bench of this Court for one reason of the other, Hon'ble I.S. Israni J. Hon'ble Tibrewal J. and Hon'ble V.S. Dave J. were not allowed to hear the cases and exceptions were sought from them. When this Bench was constituted on the joint request of Mr. When this Bench was constituted on the joint request of Mr. yadav and other advocates for some of the non-petitioners, and the name of the two members of this Bench were also dictated, firstly as said earlier no objection was raised about this Bench and only for the first time on March 6, 1991 such an abjection was raised and as said earlier under a detailed order dated March 6, 1991, the objection was no? allowed and the order dated March 6, 1991 will speak for itself. 8. Now we will come up on the merits of the writ petition. It is not desputed that the petitioner Devki Rani, is wife of Arami who is younger son of Girraj, who is khatedar of different khasra number of land measuring about 25 bighas situated in village Sikrori, Tehsil Kumher Distt. Bhratpur. Arami the husband of the petitioner, is said to be a class IV servant in the Telephones Department and is posted at Behror. The case of the petitioner from the writ petition is that after some time of the marriage, she was harassed and humiliated by her in laws for demand of dowry and it was not possible, for her maternal uncle and her widow mother to satisfy the demands of dowry as her father died. She was mentally as well as physically tortured by her in laws and ultimately she was turned out from the house by her in laws and she was compelled to live along with her widow mother and maternal uncle where she stayed near about 1; years. But with the intervention of somewell-wishers and on their assurances that they will not demand dowry further and that a provision was made by her father-in-law for a separate house and agricultural land measuring 10 bighas, she returned to her in-laws house, as per that assurance land was to be cultivated by the petitioner by Which she will maintain herself and her minor daughter. The said agreement is said to have been written on August 20, 1989 by the father-in-law, Girraj and though the original agreement has not been filed but a phtostat copy thereof has been filed. It is also the case of the petitioner that under the agreement Annr. The said agreement is said to have been written on August 20, 1989 by the father-in-law, Girraj and though the original agreement has not been filed but a phtostat copy thereof has been filed. It is also the case of the petitioner that under the agreement Annr. 1 She come in possession of 10 bighas land, out of which 3 bighas of land is situated at Ajaypur-wala-har and 7 bighas of land is situated at Banjar-Wala-har. It is also the case of the petitioner that her brother-in-law i.e. elder brother of her husband Arami, i.e. Daya Ram executed a document wherein he admitted the execution of Annr. 1 and also agreed that half portion of the house and 10 bighas of agricultural land is given to the petitioner and her husband and remaining ancestral property will be divided in between both the brothers after the death of their father.The Document alleged to have been executed by Daya Ram has been filed as Annr. 2 with the writ petition. After the execution of the aforesaid documents, as stated earlier according to the petitioner, she came in possessing of the house and agricultural land which was given to her according to the documents executed by her in laws and she is cultivating the aforesaid land. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid settlement the petitioner was again maltreated by her in laws. She was beaten by them and tortured mentally as well as physically and when the behaviour and attitude of her in laws became beyond the tolerance then she lodged a report at the Police Station Kumher, thereupon police registered a case against her father-in-law and a complaint under Section 107 and 116 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the police in the competent court, but there was no change in the attitude of her in-laws and all the arrangements to finish the petitioner had been made by her in-laws. P.C. has been filed by the police in the competent court, but there was no change in the attitude of her in-laws and all the arrangements to finish the petitioner had been made by her in-laws. As the local police was also under the influence of her in-laws and they are all protected by the local politicians of that area, the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension that her life will be finished or she will be murdered by the professional persons engaged by her in-laws and no protection was being provided to her by the police authorities therefore she knocked at the door of this court by way of filing a writ petition and that writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3122/90. In the aforesaid writ petition this court on July 28, 1990 directed the Home Commissioner and other police authorities to give police protection to the petitioner. As per the case petitioner she was well protected by the direction issued from this Court, but she being a lady and belonging to a weaker section of the society, the agricultural land is the only mean of subsitance for the petitioner and her minor daughter for their livelihood, her in-laws are adamant to dispossess her from the said land which was given to her according to the family settlement/agreement dated August 20, 1989. The petitioner lodged a report at the police Station Kumher district Bharatpur and a case has been registered against her in-laws and the S.H.O. Kumher also submitted a complaint in the court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145. Cr. P.C. The complaint under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was rejected. It is also the case of the petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition that her father-in-law also filed a revenue suit in the court of S.D.M. and with the help of Shri Natthi Singh, the then Minister, he could obtain interim order where in the petitioner was directed not to interfere in the land which is in possession of her father-in-law. 9. As said earlier,' Girraj, Father-in-law of the petitioner and Daya Ram, her Jeth i.e. elder brother of Arami, her husband, were arrayed as party-respondents. 9. As said earlier,' Girraj, Father-in-law of the petitioner and Daya Ram, her Jeth i.e. elder brother of Arami, her husband, were arrayed as party-respondents. It may be stated that later on Natthi Singh who was arrayed as respondent ceased to be the minister in the Rajasthan Cabinet and an application was filed to delet his name from the array of the respondents in the reply filed by Girraj and Daya Ram, the execution of the aforesaid documents is denied and it is denied that they bear their signatures. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, it cannot be disputed that a suit for injunction has been filed in the revenue court by Girraj, father-in-law of the petitioner under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and an injunction has been issued against the petitioner in that suit. We will not like to go into the authenticity or otherwise of the documents Annrs. 1 and 2 and all that can be said at this stage is that the execution of those documents has been denied by Girraj and Daya Ram. Even a cursory look at Annr. 1 said to be an agreement giving 10 bighas of land to the petitioner will show that prima facie no such settlement can be said to have been arrived at. It will appear that all that has been Sanctioned that after the death of Girraj, both Daya Ram and Arami shall be entitle to divide equal shares in the land measuring 24 bighas. We have said earlier that originals of Annrs. 1 and 2 have not been filed and photostat copies there of have been filed which and illegible. We are of he opinion that no case of interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. We have already said that Natthi Singh has ceased to be the Minister and that apart he has filed reply to the allegations levelled against him and he has denied all the allegations and he has also filed his affidavit. In the reply, it has been stated by Natthi singh that the petitioner in connivance with some local persons is making false averments against the respondent No. 3 and is attempting to drag him and his family members in criminal case without any. In the reply, it has been stated by Natthi singh that the petitioner in connivance with some local persons is making false averments against the respondent No. 3 and is attempting to drag him and his family members in criminal case without any. We are of the opinion that this writ petition has no merit, rather if such a writ petition is entertained, it will amount to abuse of process of the court. The remedy if any may be in revenue or other courts. Before parting with this case we would like to observe that the statement of Mr. Yadav made in the application dated March 7, 1991, that unwarranted and insulting ironical remark was passed by one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) that Mr. Yadav has waisted time unnecessarily and created unnecessary tension, is not correct. It was Shri Yadav who has himself said that when he argued the case for three to four hours, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and he waisted the time of the court. 11. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the writ petition. The stay order dated August 3;1990 stands vacated. We would have very much liked to impose exemplary cost on the petitioner for making allegations but since she is a lady we are refraining from doing so. Learned counsel for some of the respondents brought to our notice that the writ petition and vakalatnama etc. in fact do not bear the signature of the petitioner Devki Rani and they have been manufactured by her paramour. But we will not like to enter into this controversy as we are dismissing the writ petition on merits.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******