JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner Khayali Ram and the respondents Saheb Ram and Lal Chand are real brothers. Saheb Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. He filed an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which deals with the provision for granting injunction and appointment of receiver. 2. On 9-12-80 the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh attached the property and appointed a receiver. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner Camp Sriganganagar. The appeal was admitted and on the stay application the order for maintaining status quo was passed on 12-8-80, but in the mean time the receiver has taken possession of the land. 3. Vide order dated 23-12-90 the Revenue Appellate Authority directed the receiver to deliver the possession of the land to the petitioner. In pursuance of that, the possession , was delivered. 4. Saheb Ram filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 23-12-90. The Board was of the view that the revision was filed against the interlocutory order and as such was not maintainable. After examining the merit of the case as well the revision was dismissed ultimately on 30th Sept. 81. 5. During the pendency of the revision the Board of Revenue passed an order on 14-1-1981 that in respect of standing crops 'Kutanama' may be prepared and Khayali Ram (petitioner-defendant) may be allowed to remove the crop if furnished solvent surety and personal bond for the valuation of the crops. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner was delivered the possession and was permitted to take away 'Ravi' and 'Khariff' crops on payment of Rs. 3600/- for each crop but he deposited only Rs. 3000/- and in this way a sum of Rs. 6900/- remained outstanding to be paid by him. Apart from this some other amount remained unpaid. 7. Ultimately on the application of the plaintiff on 30-11-1990 the Board of Revenue passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6900/- plus a sum of Rs. 12,000/- before 1-1-91. The receiver was directed to take steps for realisation of the amount which may be found against Khayali Ram as per the order of the Board of Revenue. 8. Thereafter the petitioner agitated the matter before the Board of Revenue, and denied the liability of the amount assessed by the earlier order dated 13-11 -1990. This application was rejected on 13-4-1993. 8. Thereafter the petitioner agitated the matter before the Board of Revenue, and denied the liability of the amount assessed by the earlier order dated 13-11 -1990. This application was rejected on 13-4-1993. Against these two orders the present writ petition has been filed challenging the realisation of the amount fixed in these two orders. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the petitioner was given the possession in pursuance of the order of the Court, with a condition to deposit the fixed amount towards the 'Ravi' and 'Khariff' crops and the petitioner obtained the possession in pursuance of that order, he is under obligation to pay the amount to the plaintiff and the action of the receiver to recover the amount in no way suffers from any illegality. 10. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******