Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 189 (RAJ)

Bajranglal v. Board of Revenue

2000-02-15

R.R.YADAV

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. :- Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 17.9.96 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 4.10.96 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) whereby both the courts below ordered the petitioner to deposit cash security. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. 3. It is strenuously urged by learned counsel for petitioner that the decision rendered by Full Bench of this court in case of Suraja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan [1994(1) RLR 364 : 1995 RRD 761 approving earlier decision of Division Bench of this court in case of (2) Birji vs. Board of Revenue ( 1979 RRD 294 ) required reconsideration. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.K. Mehrishi that Full Bench decision of this court is based on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of (3) Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal ( AIR 1962 SC 527 ) which has been explained in subsequent decision of the Apex court in case of (4) Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and others reported in 1983(4) SCC 625 . It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inherent powers of the court cannot be permitted to be invoked to nullify and stultify the statutory provisions envisaged under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent Mr. S.K. Jindal opposed the aforesaid arguments with equal vehemence. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered by Full Bench of this court in case of Suraja Ram (supra) approving the earlier decision of the Division Bench rendered in case of Birji (supra) does not require reconsideration. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this court rendered in case of Suraja Ram (supra). 5. I am of the view that there is force in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. 6. 5. I am of the view that there is force in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. 6. Before dealing the rival contentions raised at the Bar in the present writ petition, it is observed that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked on recognised line. This court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide a writ petition like an appeal or revision. In the present case, before quashing the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue it is to be demonstrated that the orders passed by the subordinate authorities in the present writ petition are arbitrary and illegal, leading to unconscionable result. It is to be imbibed that mere illegality in the judgment of subordinate courts is no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is established that if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would lead to unconscionable result. Contrary to it, if this court is satisfied to the effect that material justice has been done between the parties by the impugned order it may decline to interfere with such orders. 7. With the aforesaid introspection, now I propose to deal with the arguments raised at the Bar. 8. It is noticed from perusal of the decision rendered in case of Suraja Ram (FB) that the correctness of the decision rendered by Division Bench in case of Birji (supra), was questioned, which was referred to Full Bench. The term of reference before the Full Bench in case of Suraja Ram (supra) is reproduced here in below for ready reference: "Whether the Revenue Courts are competent to pass an order for cash security in cases where neither receiver is appointed nor temporary injunction is issued under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955." 9. The aforesaid reference referred to Full Bench was answered in affirmation holding that Revenue Courts are competent to pass orders for cash security in those cases also where neither receiver was appointed nor temporary injunction was granted under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 10. The aforesaid reference referred to Full Bench was answered in affirmation holding that Revenue Courts are competent to pass orders for cash security in those cases also where neither receiver was appointed nor temporary injunction was granted under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 10. I am of the view that a person who is in possession cannot be dispossessed by granting temporary injunction or by appointing a receiver under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 until the decree has been obtained in accordance with law against such person. In proceedings under section 212 of the aforesaid Act, title is not to be enquired into. The aforesaid section merely provides for interim action pending the disposal of the suit and specifically enumerates the contingencies in which its provisions can be invoked. It goes without saying that while deciding an application under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the Revenue Courts are not required to go into the merits of the case. They are merely required to be satisfied about prima facie case of a party. The object of the aforesaid section is to preserve the subject matter in controversy in its existing condition and without determining any question of right barely to prevent the further perpetuation of wrong or the doing of any act whereby the lis may be materially effected or endangered during the pendency of the suit. 11. Here in the present case, indisputably, the petitioner is in possession and both the courts below have recorded a prima facie case in favour of contesting non-petitioners. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate before this court that the orders passed by both the courts below directing the petitioner to deposit cash security can be said to be arbitrary and leading to unconscionable result. As a matter of fact, the money which would be deposited in lieu of possession of agricultural land in question by the petitioner shall remain deposited and its refund will depend on the result of the suit. In such a situation the order cannot be said to be unconscionable. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner but a serious prejudice would be caused to the contesting non-petitioners if ultimately suit is decided in their favour. In such a situation it would be very difficult to compensate the contesting non-petitioners for de facto possession of the petitioner. In such a situation the order cannot be said to be unconscionable. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner but a serious prejudice would be caused to the contesting non-petitioners if ultimately suit is decided in their favour. In such a situation it would be very difficult to compensate the contesting non-petitioners for de facto possession of the petitioner. I am objectively satisfied that both the courts below have done material justice between the parties by directing the petitioner to deposit cash security for his de facto possession during the pendency of the suit. I decline to set aside the orders passed by Revenue Appellate Authority dated 17.9.96 and the order dated 4.10.96 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order dated 17.9.96 Annexure 2. It is held that decision rendered by Full Bench in case of Suraja Ram (supra) does not require reconsideration.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition Dismissed. *******