Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2065 (RAJ)

Richhpal Singh v. Karnail Singh

2006-06-20

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble Arvind, M.—This is a revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment dated 7.5.2005 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar. 2. Briefly, the facts of this revision are that the petitioner submitted a suit under sections 88, 91 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, which is still pending. In this suit an application for injunction was made before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by Richhpal Singh praying that the non-petitioners be prevented from interfering in possession of the petitioner and also should be restrained from transferring the disputed land to anybody. An another application was also made by the non-petitioners for getting injunction against the petitioner for the same purpose. Learned Sub-Divisional consolidated both the applications and legitimate came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of a quarrel between the parties and there is allegation of threatened alienation and he found that it would be proper for the maintenance of peace and protection of the interest of the parties that receiver be appointed. An appeal against this order was made before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by the present petitioner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by his order dated 7.5.2005 found the property in medio and found that the order of appointing a receiver was proper in the circumstances of this case. He also ordered that the parties are free to make request under section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the trial court. Aggrieved against the order of appointment of receiver, the petitioner came to this court and obtained stay order against auction of the land for agricultural purposes. The stay is continuing and the auction which was made, had a bid of Rs. 95,000/- is in medio and the land could not be cultivated and loss of Rs. 95,000/- has occurred. By this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur for appointing receiver and has also requested to taken the land on cash security under section 212(2) of the R.T. Act. 3. 95,000/- has occurred. By this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur for appointing receiver and has also requested to taken the land on cash security under section 212(2) of the R.T. Act. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the land was willed to the father of the petitioner by khatedar Harbhajan Singh and the petitioner is rightful claimant of the land for which he has been in possession. His possession is as old as from 1993 and it has been for more than 12 years and he cannot be dispossessed. As such the order of appointment of a receiver is unjust and improper. He also argued that the property could be given to the petitioner on cash security but it was also not given. He has prayed this court for giving him the disputed land for cultivation under section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He has also argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority has wrongly rejected his application under section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and asked him to approach the trial court. 4. Arguing against the petition, the learned counsel on behalf of the non-petitioners argued that the property is in medio because after the death of Harbhajan Singh the property has not been mutated in the name of anybody. As such the property continue to be in medio and there are no grounds for disbelieving the conclusions of learned Sub-Divisional Officer when he says that there is possibility of fight between the parties and in the interest of maintenance of peace receiver is the property remedy. As there is threat of alienation of the land also. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority has also concluded that the property is in medio and there are no grounds at the stage of revisional level to go into the merits of the case and challenge the findings of both the courts below, this is not the scope of revision. He also argued that the revision is not maintainable because the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur is not covered within the meaning of "case decided". He also argued that the revision is not maintainable because the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur is not covered within the meaning of "case decided". He also argued that it is open for the petitioner to approach the learned Sub-Divisional Officer with the application under section 212(2) in case he wants to justify his claim for 212(2) of the Tenancy Act. He also argued that at this stage it is not proper for the petitioner to get any relief on the application of 212(2) of the R.T. Act and he can approach the court who appointed the receiver. 5. Having heard the parties, having perused the record available before me, I come to the following conclusions: (1) That from the facts available on the record of both the lower courts it has been prima facie revealed that the disputed property is in medio. Apprehensions for alienation have been expressed, the disputed property continues to remain in the name of late Shri Harbhajan Singh and land has not been mutated in the names of successors, there is apprehension of breach of peace for retaining the possession at the site. In view of these circumstances of which conclusions have been drawn by both the courts, i.e., learned S.D.O. and R.A.A., there are no grounds in revision before us on the basis of which there is a need of interference in the impugned orders. As such there is no need of interfering with the orders of appointment of a receiver and the orders of both the courts below for appointment of a receiver are upheld. (2) It is agreed that the appointment of a receiver is the harshest remedy but it has to be kept in mind that when the problem becomes complex such as in this case, this remedy also has to be utilised. When a tablet does not work the doctor has to take recourse of injection and when injection also does not work procedure by operation also becomes necessary. Similar the situation with this case also, when the property is in medio, the court cannot leave it to the muscle power to take over possession. Genuine interest of the legitimate party in such a situation can best be protected by appointment of a receiver. The courts cannot close their eyes in such a situation like this and cannot give a premium to lawlessness. Genuine interest of the legitimate party in such a situation can best be protected by appointment of a receiver. The courts cannot close their eyes in such a situation like this and cannot give a premium to lawlessness. In this context it is also proper to respectfully refer to 1976 RRD page 18. As such the orders of both the courts below are justified. (3) In the circumstances of this case it would be very appropriate to leave the matter of 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to the discretion of learned Sub-Divisional Officer. If any party wants to take the land on cash security in that case that party can apply to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur. It is clarified that this Bench expresses no view and learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur is free to pass an appropriate order on cash security as he deems fit. 6. As such both the impugned order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur dated 21.4.2005 and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar dated 7.5.2005 are upheld. This revision petition is rejected with the observations above. Pronounced.