JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in the present case is made to the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 15.5.2007 and the order of the Revenue Board dated 8.7.2008 by which the said order was upheld. The Revenue Appellate Authority by the aforesaid order has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4, in which her application under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver was rejected. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the receiver could not be appointed for the entire land because it was 5.57 hectares of land, in which three brothers had shares and respondent no.4 Gayatri has brought share of one of the brother Ram Sahay, whose legal heirs have sold land of 1.24 hectares to respondent no.2 Gayatri. It is contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority ignored the fact that with regard to this very land, civil suit was pending and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in his order dated 3.5.2007 directed that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to land in dispute. 3. In the first place, the receiver could not have been appointed in the face of status quo order passed in the civil suit. Secondly, the direction of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that if the petitioners fail to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per annum for 2 / 5 th share of the total land, the receiver shall take charge of entire land measuring 5.57 hectares. 4. Shri Manoj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submits that claim of respondent no.4 is confined only to that part of the land which she has purchased and not the entire land. Petitioners cannot be allowed to cultivate the land without paying the said amount and in case the petitioners are not ready to pay the amount, respondent no.4 would be ready to get the land on payment of such amount. 5. Having regard to the nature of the case and considering that land has so far not been divided by leaps and bounds, yet it is evident that the legal heirs of Ram Sahay would have allegedly sold that part of the land which devolved upon them by succession, therefore, the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority requiring the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month is just and proper. 45,000/- per month is just and proper. The direction that in case of failure of petitioners to pay the said amount, is only consequential so as to make the order mandatory because the share of the land so far not been determined. When it was pointedly asked to learned counsel for the petitioners whether petitioners are not willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 45,000/- because the consequential order to that extent would be attracted in that situation was that petitioners would abide by that order, but then entire land would be taken possession of by the receiver. 6. Having regard to the arguments aforesaid, the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue are modified to say that the receiver shall be appointed only to 2 / 5 th of the total land and petitioners shall pay the amount of Rs. 45,000/- every year for cultivating such land to Tahsildar concerned who shall on deposit of the required amount every year, deposit the same in FDR for a period of one year which shall be renewable for the spell of another one year in every such span, if in the meantime, the civil suit filed by the petitioners is not decided. The payment of such amount shall finally abide by the judgement and decree passed by civil court. 7. With that modification, the writ petition is partly allowed.Petition Partly Allowed. *******