Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1430 (RAJ)

Badam Singh v. Murti Srinathji Maharaj

2005-05-12

A.K.PUROHIT, B.L.MEENA

body2005
PUROHIT, MEMBER—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment & decree passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur in appeal No. 243/01 by which he has confirmed the judgment & decree passed by the Asstt. Collector Bharatpur. (2). In a suit filed by Murti Srinath Ji Maharaj situated at Atalband Darwaja, Bharatpur under Section 183, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit and directed to evict the present appellant from the disputed land. In this appeal, the present appellant has argued the appeal for admission as well as on stay application. Shri R.S. Purohit who has appeared as a caveator in this appeal has filed the reply to the stay application. (3). The counsel for the appellants has argued that this Court on 25.4.2005 in a transfer petition filed by the appellant with regard to this very case, granted the stay which was served on 26.4.2005 by way of an application moved by the appellants before the concerned Revenue Appellate Authority, but inspite of this stay order passed on 25.4.2005, the learned RAA has dismissed the appeal which is under challenge now. (4). In reply to this argument of the appellants, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that stay order passed by this Court on transfer application was not served with application to the R.A.A. by the appellant at the time when the judgment was pronounced on 26.4.2005. On the merits of the case, Shri Ashok Agarwal counsel for the respondent has submitted that the notices in this case have already been issued and record has been called; therefore, he should not be dispossessed till record is received and the case is finally decided. This argument of Shri Ashok Agarwal has been vehemently opposed by Shri R.S. Purohit. In his reply to the stay application, Shri R.S. Purohit has brought out to the notice of this Court that earlier the order was passed by the Board of Revenue in the interim proceedings of the suit (from which this appeal has arisen) in which the matter came up before the Board of Revenue in revision and the Board in the revision against the interim orders in the suit, passed the order on 13.6.2001 to the effect that the present appellant should deposit security amount Rs. 500/- per bigha per harvest within 21 days from the passing of this order. 500/- per bigha per harvest within 21 days from the passing of this order. Shri Purohit has also submitted that the appellant has not obeyed the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 13.6.2001 in the revision arising out of the same matter and has not even paid the earlier arrears of the amount of security. (5). After hearing both the counsels on stay application we are of the opinion that this appeal be admitted. After hearing on stay application, the appellant should deposit within two months the whole arrear of security amount as per this Courts earlier order dated 13.6.2001 and in future also, he should make the payment of Rs. 500/- per bigha per harvest before 1st July of every year before the Tehsildar concerned. On doing so, the appellant can continue in possession of the disputed land till the disposal of this appeal. Though Shri Ashok Agarwal has agreed that his client will deposit the arrear of security amount ordered by this Court, but in the facts & circumstances of this case, we pass this order directing the appellant to deposit the arrears due against him as well as the security amount payable per bigha per harvest every year as stated above. Once again it is made clear that in the event the appellant fails to deposit the arrear of security amount calculated from 13.6.2001 uptil now within a period of two months as stated above, which according to the counsel for the respondent is Rs. 21,000/- (but this amount will be verified by the concerned S.D.O.), the stay order granted by this Court today will automatically be vacated and the Tehsildar concerned will have a right to immediately take over the possession of the disputed land as a receiver. The record of the lower Court be summoned. The case be listed for further proceedings in the appeal on 14.7.2005. Dasti of this order may be given today.