Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 977 (RAJ)

Manka Devi v. Dungar Ram

2010-05-06

G.K.TIWARI

body2010
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 20.12.02 of Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the revision are that during pendency of a revenue suit between the rival parties in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Ratangarh, the non-petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 212 of the Act for grant of temporary injunction in which Sub-Divisional Officer issued the final order dated 4.6.02 for maintaining status quo of the land and record. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 225 of the Act before Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner who dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 20.12.02, aggrieved against which this revision is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the lower courts have given order of status quo as a final judgment in an application for grant of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act, which is illegal as no final judgment for maintaining status quo of the disputed land and record can be given, as held in 1994 RRD 581 and 1985 RRD 30. 5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that there is nothing illegal in granting order of status quo of the disputed land and record until final decision of the suit. The learned counsel cited 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 421, 2008 RRT (2) page 1123 = RLW 2008(2) RJ 875 and 2001(8) RBJ 44 in support of his contention. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgments of both the lower courts and gone through the material on record. 7. Perusal of the judgment dated 4.6.02 of Sub-Divisional Officer shows that he has given final judgment in application for grant of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act for maintaining status quo of the land and record. It has been held umpteen number of times by this Court that maintaining of status quo of land and record can be given as an interim order but it cannot be given as a final and conclusive order with final adjudication of an application filed under section 212 of the Act. It has been held umpteen number of times by this Court that maintaining of status quo of land and record can be given as an interim order but it cannot be given as a final and conclusive order with final adjudication of an application filed under section 212 of the Act. It is obligatory for a trial court to take into consideration the basic elements and ingredients like prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience with regard to disputed land, and then pass a specific order under Section 212 of the Act with acceptance or rejection of the application filed thereunder. I am fortified in holding this view by pronouncement of this Court as reported in 1994 RRD 581, 1985 RRD 30 and 1991 RRD 231. Revenue Appellate Authority has overlooked these aspects of the basic provisions of Revenue Laws and illegally agreed with the order of Sub-Divisional Officer for maintaining status quo of the land and record as a final judgment. However, both the courts below have given one specific restraining order which is against transfer/alienation of the disputed land. This part of the order of the judgment is acceptable being in keeping with the provision of Section 212 of the Act. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has cited 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 421 and 2002(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1223 in support of his contention for maintaining status quo as a final order, with utmost humility and due regard to these citations it is submitted that these are neither with regard to section 212 of the Act nor with regard to a dispute relating to tenancy right in agriculture lands. The facts, circumstances and the law enunciated in these citations are altogether different; as such the learned counsel has misquoted and misapplied these citations to the case under consideration which is starkly dissimilar in nature and content. 8. Similarly citations of 2001 RBJ (8) 411 and 2008(2) RRT 1123 = RLW 2008(2) RJ 875 are not applicable in this case as both the rulings are by way of interim order during pendency of an appeal against the judgment passed under section 212 of the Act. None of them is a final and conclusive judgment with final adjudication of application under Section 212 of the Act. As such both these citations are misconceived and misapplied by the learned counsel in the present case. 9. None of them is a final and conclusive judgment with final adjudication of application under Section 212 of the Act. As such both these citations are misconceived and misapplied by the learned counsel in the present case. 9. In the result the revision petition is partially allowed. The specific injunction order against transfer/alienation of the disputed land in the impugned judgment dated 20.12.02 and 4.6.02 is upheld; but the remaining part of the order for maintaining status quo of the land and record is set aside. Pronounced.