CHOPRA, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer Annexure-3 dated 28-6-1991 whereby the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has ordered that the petitioners will furnish a cash security @ Rs. 500/- per bigha per year, failing which, it will be deemed that this order has not been passed and for subsequent years also, the petitioners were directed to deposit the cash security latest by 30.6.1991 and so on. The petitioners sought a review of this order and submitted that a solvent cash security @ Rs. 100/- per bigha per year be obtained from them but that review was also rejected. (2) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that respondent No.5 Smt. Chandrakanta through her General Power of Attorney Holder filed a suit under Ss. 103 and 100 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners on 20.9.1990 with the allegations that in the boundary of village Gulab Ganj, Tehsil Revdar, she owns about 29 Khasras, the total area of which is 130 bighas and 15 biswas and that land stands in her Khatedari. The petitioners are in unlawful possession of these Khasras and, therefore, a decree of ejectment as also a permanent injunction may be passed against them. She has further prayed that till the possession is delivered to her, she may be awarded damages to the extent of 15 times of the land revenue from the defendant-petitioners. (3) According to plaintiff-respondent No.5, the land in dispute was purchased on 28.9.1966, when she was a minor and thereafter, it is being managed by her grand father and uncle, who are the defendant-petitioners in this case. She has also prayed that the defendants-petitioners may be directed not to enter in the land in dispute and to cultivate it. (4) A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant- petitioners. According to the defendant-petitioner, the land in question was purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of the plaintiff, who was one of the members of the joint family. Thereafter, about Rs. 4,00,000/- have been spent on it from the joint family funds. (4) A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant- petitioners. According to the defendant-petitioner, the land in question was purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of the plaintiff, who was one of the members of the joint family. Thereafter, about Rs. 4,00,000/- have been spent on it from the joint family funds. According to the petitioners, there is no question of appointment of a Receiver because the property in dispute is in their peaceful possession and hence, no injunction could be granted in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.5. (5) The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi while discussing the authorities that have been cited before him hold that the plaintiff-respondent No.5 is a Parda Nashin lady and further she belongs to the weaker section of the society and, therefore, in order to safeguard her interest, a Receiver be appointed to look after the entire land in dispute. Tehsildar Revdar was appointed as the Receiver of this property. However, no permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No.5. An appeal against this order was filed and that too came to be dismissed vide order Annexure-2 dated 24.6.1991. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue observed that it appears that the trial court has appointed the Receiver without a specific request being made by the plaintiff, who has simply made an application under s. 212 of the Act and has requested for grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners. (6) It may be stated that when the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, certain observations were made as regards merits of the case, which was not proper for him. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that there is no dispute regarding old possession of the defendant-petitioners on the land in dispute. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that there is no dispute regarding old possession of the defendant-petitioners on the land in dispute. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that even if the defendants are in possession without lawful authority, as tresspassers, they are entitled to protection of this court until ejected by a decree of competent court but at the same time, in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff-respondent, who is ostensible owner of the property, the stay application filed along with the revision petition was accepted and the order regarding appointment of Receiver was stayed provided that cash security at the rate of Rs. 500/-per bigha per year is deposited by the petitioners in the concerned Tehsil within 10 days from this order failing which this order will be deemed not to have been passed. It was further ordered that for subsequent years, the cash Security will be deposited latest by 30.6.1992 and so on. It is against this order that the petitioners have filed this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (7) We have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.L. Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (8) It was contended by Mr. A.L. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order Annexure-3 has been passed against the spirit of s. 212 of the Act. Sec.212 of the Act provides for grant of injunction and appointment of Receiver. According to Mr. Chopra, the learned Board of Revenue has already observed that no request for appointment of a Receiver has been made by the petitioners. Her only prayer was for grant of an injunction and that has not been granted in her favour. Sec.212 of the Act provides for grant of injunction and appointment of Receiver. According to Mr. Chopra, the learned Board of Revenue has already observed that no request for appointment of a Receiver has been made by the petitioners. Her only prayer was for grant of an injunction and that has not been granted in her favour. (9) S.212 of the Act provides that if in the course of any suit or proceeding under this Act, it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property to which such suit or proceedings relates is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto, or that any party to such suit or proceeding threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of justice, the court may grant a temporary injunction and, if necessary, appoint a Receiver. Thus a Receiver can be appointed on the request of the party only if there is an allegation that the property to which the suit or proceeding relates is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto or that any party to such suit or proceeding threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of justice. In this case, all the three courts below have nowhere recorded that the property is either in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto or that the party in possession has any intention to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of justice. Thus, it was not at all a case in which any injunction could have been granted by the courts below and hence it has rightly not been granted. When this is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are in possession of the property in dispute from the date she was a minor and it was because of this that the relief of delivery of possession has been sought then in such a case of settled possession, even a Receiver could not have been appointed. Thus, the learned Board of Revenue has rightly observed that this is not a case where a Receiver could be appointed. (10) However, the order regarding demand of cash security has been made to protect the interest of the plaintiff-respondent. Thus, the learned Board of Revenue has rightly observed that this is not a case where a Receiver could be appointed. (10) However, the order regarding demand of cash security has been made to protect the interest of the plaintiff-respondent. The demand of cash security for such a huge amount does not appear to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this respect, Mr. A.L. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to a decision of the Madras High Court in Krishnaswamy V. Thangavelu (1) wherein while discussing the scope of O.40, r,l C.P.C. observed that the appointment of a Receiver is recognised as one of the harsheet remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and as allowable only in extreme cases and in circumstances where the interest of the person seeking the appointment of Receiver is exposed to manifest peril. Therefore, this exceedingly delicate and responsible duty has to be discharged by the Court with the utmost caution and only when the five requirements embodies in the words just and convenient in O.40, r.l are fulfilled by the facts of the case under consideration. These five requirements are : — "(1) The appointment of a Receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. (2) The Court should not appoint a Receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. (3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency of danger or less demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonable clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. (4) An order appointing a Receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a de facto possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. The element of danger is an important consideration. (4) An order appointing a Receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a de facto possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be in media, that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, And, (5) The Court, on the application made for the appointment of a Receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame." (11) In this case, none of the requirements mentioned in s. 212 of the Act have been satisfied and, therefore, no Receiver could have been appointed, and no injunction could have been granted and when the provisions of s. 212 of the Act are not attracted, no order demanding cash security would have been passed. (12) In this respect, our attention was also drawn to a decision of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in Malum Singh V. Hardyal Singh (2), wherein it has been observed that the provisions of S. 212 of the Act are to be strictly complied with by the Revenue Courts in matters of granting T.I. or Appointment of Receiver. Sub-s. (2) of s.212 of the Act comes into play only when T.I. is granted or Receiver is appointed and not otherwise. It was further hold that cash security could not have been asked for under s. 212 of the Act when neither T.I. is granted nor Receiver is appointed. In this case, neither T.I. has been granted nor Receiver has been appointed because the order appointing the Receiver has been stayed but still, the cash security has been demanded on the ground that the plaintiff is a Parda-Nashin lady and, therefore, her interest could be safe- guarded by demanding solvent cash security from the petitioners. (13) A some what similar view has been taken by the Board of Revenue in Purnaram vs. Smt. Mola (3). Our attention was next drawn to a decision of the Board of Revenue in L.1/2 of Raghunath V. L. Rs. (13) A some what similar view has been taken by the Board of Revenue in Purnaram vs. Smt. Mola (3). Our attention was next drawn to a decision of the Board of Revenue in L.1/2 of Raghunath V. L. Rs. of Pujari Fundidas (4), wherein it has been observed that in cases of settled possession, the order of appointment of receiver is nothing short of miscarriage of justice and even an order permitting defendant to remain in possession on payment of cash security cannot be sustained. It is true that the impugned order has been passed during the pendency of the revision petition but this order has acquired the final shape because the revision petition filed against it has been dismissed and therefore, so far as this particular order is concerned, it has become final between the parties. May be that the revision is pending but as we have observed earlier that the requirement of s. 212 of the Act do not exist in this case and, therefore, the receiver cannot be appointed and, therefore, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned order. (14) In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure-3 dt. 28.6.1991 whereby cash security has been demanded from the defendant-petitioners for remaining in possession of the land in dispute, is hereby quashed. The interest of the plaintiff can be safeguarded by following in the provisions of Law and not by bypassing them or flouting them. (15) There will be no order as to costs.