JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 2.8.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, camp Sri Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioners for early hearing of the criminal revision petition which is pending before him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question, Khasra Nos. 460, 463, is situated at village Bamanvas (Khandela), District Sikar. While half of the land allegedly belongs to the petitioners, the other half used to belong to Kalyanmal, the father of respondent No. 1. According to the petitioners, Pawan Kumar sold half of his share in Khasra Nos. 460 and 463 and 1/4 of his share in Khasra No. 459 to respondent No. 3, Smt. Patasi Devi, through a registered sale deed in April 2010. However, as the property was never partitioned within the family, the petitioners filed a suit for partition and injunction against the respondents before the Court of ACM, Khandela, District Sikar. Although, initially a stay was granted in favour of the petitioners, subsequently, the said stay was vacated. Aggrieved by the vacation of the stay order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Addl. District Collector, Sikar, who vide order dated 4.10.2010 directed that the status quo be maintained. 3. Meanwhile, on 18.11.2010, the SHO, Police Station, Khandela filed a criminal complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as according to the SHO there was a real likelihood of a dispute erupting between the petitioners and the respondents which could lead to a law and order problem. Vide order dated 22.6.2011, the learned Sub Divisional Officer appointed the Tehsildar, Sri Madhopur, as the receiver of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 460, 461, 459, 463. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Judge. The learned Judge posted the case for 23.8.2011. However, before the said date, an auction notice dated 22.7.2011 was published. According to the notice, the Tehsildar is planning to auction the crop, which according to the petitioners belongs to them. According to the said notice, the auction is scheduled to be held on 12.8.2011. Since the criminal revision petition is scheduled to be heard on 23.8.2011, and since the auction is scheduled to be held on 12.8.2011, the petitioners immediately filed an application for early hearing of the criminal revision. According to the said notice, the auction is scheduled to be held on 12.8.2011. Since the criminal revision petition is scheduled to be heard on 23.8.2011, and since the auction is scheduled to be held on 12.8.2011, the petitioners immediately filed an application for early hearing of the criminal revision. However, vide order dated 2:8.2011, the learned Judge has dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the land was in possession of the petitioners and the crop in issue also belong to the petitioners. Therefore, the Tehsildar should not permitted to auction the above said crop. Moreover, the learned Judge has not given any reason for dismissing the application. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. 6. Once a Receiver has been appointed, obviously, the land neither belongs to the petitioners, nor to the respondents, but it is under the care of the Receiver. Since a perishable commodity is involved, the Receiver has no other option, but to auction the same. Of course, the receiver is legally bound to retain the money raised by the auction. Therefore, the petitioners cannot possibly claim that the receiver should be stopped from auctioning the crop. 7. However, considering the fact that the battle between the parties is with regard to the land, the learned Judge is directed to decide the revision petition as expeditiously as possible. 8. With these directions, this petition stands disposed of. Consequently the state petition also stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******