Honble SHARMA, M.—In this revision filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short to be referred as the Act) against the impugned order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur Camp Deeg dated 8.2.2006 in the pending case No. 14/2005, an application under Section 151 of CPC has also been filed by petitioner-applicant. 2. It has been narrated that on the application of 212 of Tenancy Act filed by the plaintiff on 4.12.2004 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar (Bharatpur) an order was passed by the Court on 11.5.2005 in case No. 233/04 vide which Tehsildar, Nagar was appointed receiver. 3. In the appeal filed in Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur by the non-petitioner in appeal No. 14/05, the Appellate Court vide its decision dated 8.2.2006 allowed the appeal and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar dated 11.5.2005 appointing Tehsildar, Nagar as receiver was set aside. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has alleged that Tehsildar, Nagar has not taken possession of the said land in the capacity of the receiver and the report for taking possession of land has been prepared on 4.6.2005 by the I.L.R. and the Patwari having jurisdiction. He says that such a report is a nullity in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he cites RRD 1986 Page 88 which reads as follows:– "RTA Section 212—Tehsildar, appointed as receiver by RAA, possession taken over by Patwari as per entry Ghatna Bahi—Held, Tehsildar being officer of Court as receiver not competent to delegate his duties to any other subordinate officer and as such act of Patwari being illegal and unauthorised, not sustainable." 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner asserts that firstly, the competent official as per Court order has not taken possession of the said land. Secondly, even if it presumed that the said suit land has come under attachment through receiver, the same impugned order of SDO, Nagar has been set aside by RAA vide its judgment dated 8.2.2006. He narrates that it is very strange that even in spite of all these facts, the land under dispute has been put to auction vide Auction Notice dated 8.3.2006; photo copy of the notice for auction attached. He narrates that it is very strange that even in spite of all these facts, the land under dispute has been put to auction vide Auction Notice dated 8.3.2006; photo copy of the notice for auction attached. The learned advocate for the petitioner cites that vide Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, an order which has been set aside by an Appellate court, ceases to exist for all practical purposes and would not revive automatically by way of stay order of this Court. A positive fresh order is necessary and mandatory for reviving of the order of the trial Court. As per learned counsel of the applicant, the petitioner is afraid of being dispossessed from his lawful possession in the garb of the order made by this bench on 27.2.2006 vide which the operation of the order of RAA, Bharatpur dated 8.2.2006 has been stayed till further orders of this Court. 6. The learned advocate for the non-petitioner says that the execution made and the action taken by the Tehsildar, Nagar is rightful in the compliance of the competent Court orders. However, he could not establish how lawful was the possession taken by the concerned Patwari on behalf of the Tehsildar, Nagar as receiver. 7. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels of the parties and perused the record. I has been explicitly established that Tehsildar, Nagar has not complied with he Court orders judiciously in the eye of law and he further directed the concerned Patwari to take over the possession of the suit land as if it was a routine administrative matter. 8. Frequently, on many occasions, it has been cited and therefore it is well established position of law that any official appointed as receiver by a competent authority will have o act himself and comply the Court order in person in official capacity. He is not competent to further delegate his authority or power to any subordinate official and if it is done, it will be patently wrong and unlawful. 9. He is not competent to further delegate his authority or power to any subordinate official and if it is done, it will be patently wrong and unlawful. 9. Hence, I agree with the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession taken by Patwari in compliance of the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar dated 11.5.2005, was of no consequence and any further action taken by subordinate officials in this matter would be treated as if no compliance has been done on the orders of the competent authority. 10. The subordinate Courts and the receiver Tehsildar, Nagar have also wrongly interpreted the stay order given by this bench of 27.2.2006. The impact of this stay order cannot be to revive the order of S.D.O., Nagar appointing Tehsildar Nagar as receiver. 11. In the above circumstances, the application of the petitioner under 151 of the CPC is allowed. RAA, Bharatpur and S.D.O., Nagar are hereby directed not to auction any crop/land since the receiver appointed on this land is a nullity. 12. The record of he subordinate Courts : R.A.A. Bharatpur, S.D.O., Nagar and Tehsildar, Nagar be called for further suitable orders in this case. This case be listed for next date of hearing on 5.6.2006. Pronounced.