JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition, relating to the matter of grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of a revenue suit for declaration, partition and other reliefs, has been filed by the defendants in the suit seeking to question the order dated 05.05.2010 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') in Revision Petition No.TA/3020/2009/Chittorgarh whereby the Board declined to interfere with the order dated 25.03.2009 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh ('the RAA') after finding no case of jurisdictional error. 2. In the aforesaid order dated 25.03.2009, the RAA considered and decided the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 19.01.2009 as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda ('the SDO') in Misc. Case No.227/2008 and, while modifying the order so passed, granted temporary injunction as prayed; and restrained the defendants,petitioners from alienating the land in question admeasuring 56 bigahs and 10 biswas and further directed that status quo shall be maintained during the pendency of the suit.In a brief reference to the background aspects, suffice is to notice that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a revenue suit under Sections 88, 53, 188 and 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') against the present petitioners claiming their rights in the land in question situated at village Karunda admeasuring 56 bighas and 10 biswas while alleging the land in question to be the ancestral property of the joint Hindu family and themselves having the rights in the same as successors of the cotenants. The plaintiffs also moved an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 seeking restraint orders against the defendants petitioners from alienating the land in question and from interfering with their possession. 3. It appears from the material placed on record that in the first place, the learned SDO, by order dated 16.10.2008, issued the temporary injunction and directed that status quo in relation to the record shall be maintained. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 30.12.2008 and was posted for orders on 19.01.2009. 3. It appears from the material placed on record that in the first place, the learned SDO, by order dated 16.10.2008, issued the temporary injunction and directed that status quo in relation to the record shall be maintained. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 30.12.2008 and was posted for orders on 19.01.2009. On 19.01.2009, the questioned order came to be passed in the following terms: " i=koyh is'k gqbZA odhy oknh mifLFkrA odhy oknh us izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k ftlesa LFkxu vkns'k vkxkeh is'kh rd c<+kus dk fuosnu fd;kA iwoZ lquokbZ fnukad 30-12-2008 ds vuqlkj LovftZr vkjkft;kr ij ls LFkxu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ekS:lh vkjkft;kr ij rkfu.kZ; LFkxu dUQeZ fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs fnukad 16-3-2009 dks ewy okn ds lkFk is'k gksA " 4. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, particularly of denial of the prayer for temporary injunction in regard to the so called self acquired property, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal that was considered and decided by the RAA by the order dated 25.03.2009. Apart from the merits of the case, a submission made before the RAA was taken note of that in the Trial Court the arguments were heard by the Presiding Officer on 30.12.2008 who posted the matter for orders on 19.01.2009; but the said Presiding Officer was3 transferred and the succeeding Presiding Officer passed the order on 19.01.2009 without hearing the parties. Even without much comments on the aforesaid aspect, the learned RAA found that the rights of the parties were to be determined in the original suit and there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The RAA also took note of the fact that the defendants were seeking to somehow alienate the land in question. In the totality of the circumstances, the learned RAA found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and also observed that in case of transfer of the land in question, the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable injury; while on the other hand, the land was mortgaged with the Bank against the loan and hence, its transfer was even otherwise not justified. The learned RAA thus, proceeded to set aside the order passed by the SDO and issued the temporary injunction as prayed for while observing:- " gekjs le{k fopkjk/khu izdj.k esa foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZx.k ds gdksa ls bUdkjh dh tk jgh gS] lkekU;r;k firk vius iq= ds uke ij fodz; ugha djrk gS] tcfd bl izdj.k esa 'kh?kzrk dh tkdj oknxzLr vkjkth;kr dks [kqnZ cqnZ dh tkus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gS] tcfd oknxzLr vkjkth;kr dk eks:lh ,oa LovftZr lEifRr gksuk vkSj i{kdkjksa dk oknxzLr vkjkth;kr esa gd fu/kkZfjr gksuk 'ks"k gS tks ewyokn esa lk{; ds mijkUr gh fu/kkZfjr gks ldsxkA foi{kh us oknxzLr vkjkth;kr ds vfoHkkftr lEifRr gksus ds izkFkhZx.k ds dFku dk [k.Mu Hkh ugha fd;k gSa] vkSj izkFkhZx.k dk oknxzLr vkjkth;kr esa izFke n`"V;k gd gksuk ik;k tkrk gS] rFkk lqfo/kk larqyu Hkh izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa gS] vkSj foi{kh }kjk ;fn Hkwfe dk voS/kkfud rkSj ij gLrkUrj.k dj fn;k tkrk gS rks viw.khZ; {kfr Hkh izkFkhZx.k dks gh gksxh] tcfd LFkxu vkns'k izHkkoh jgus ls foi{khx.k dks fdlh izdkj dh {kfr ugha gS] vkSj lEiw.kZ vkjkth;kr ij cSad }kjk _.k Hkh Lohd`r fd;k tkdj Hkwfe cSad ds jgu gS] ftlls oknxzLr vkjkth;kr dk gLrkUrj.k fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gksus ls oknxzLr vkjkth;kr dh ewyokn ds fu.kZ; rd ekSds ,oa jktLo vfHkys[k dh ;Fkkor fLFkfr dk;e j[kh tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA QyLo:i ;g vihy Lohdkj ;ksX; gSA vr% vihy vihyk.V Lohdkj dh tkdj mi[k.M vf/kdkjh fuEcgsMk vkns'k fnukad 19-1-2009 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS] vkSj xzke dk:.Mk rglhy fuEckgsMk ds [kkrk la0 174 esa of.kZr vkjkth;kr dqy fdrk 23 jdck 56 ch?kk 10 fcLok dh ewyokn ds fu.kZ; rd gLrkUrj.k ugha fd;k tkos] vkSj ;Fkkor~ fLFkfr cuk, j[ks tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA " 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.03.2009, the petitioners preferred the revision petition that has been dismissed by the Board with the observations that the question was yet to be determined if a part of the land was the self-acquired property of the defendant Megh Raj or was the joint family property. The Board also commented on the illegality and impropriety on the part of the Presiding Officer who passed the order on 19.01.2009 without hearing the arguments. The Board also noticed the fact that despite injunction order, the petitioner Megh Raj attempted to execute a sale deed in favour of his grandson. The Board also commented on the illegality and impropriety on the part of the Presiding Officer who passed the order on 19.01.2009 without hearing the arguments. The Board also noticed the fact that despite injunction order, the petitioner Megh Raj attempted to execute a sale deed in favour of his grandson. The Board dismissed the revision petition by its impugned order dated 05.05.2010 with the following observations and findings:- " 8- i{kdkjksa ds e/; fookfnr Hkwfe dh [kkrsnkjh o foHkktu dks ysdj okn fopkjk/khu gS ftlesa bl ckr dk Hkh fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ls 24 ch?kk 16 fcLok Hkwfe izkFkhZ es?kjkt dh LovftZr gS ;k ;g la;qDr ifjokj dh Hkwfe gSA vr,o gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa okn ds fu.kZ; rd fjdkMZ o ekSds dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kuk o fookfnr Hkwfe dks [kqn cqnZ ugha djus dk vkns'k tkjh djuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gSA fo'ks"kdj bl ifjfLFkfr esa fd izkFkhZ es?kjkt }kjk LFkxu vkns'k ds ckotwn fookfnr Hkwfe dh jftLV~h vius iksrs ds uke djokus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA 9- ;g rF; Hkh xkSjryc gS fd fnukad 30-12-2008 dks LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ij lquokbZ iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ Fkh tcfd mlh cgl dks vk/kkj cukrs gq, u;s ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fnukad 19-1-2009 dks la'kksf/kr vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k] ftls mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrkA gekjh lEefr esa u;s ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks iqu% cgl lquuh pkfg, FkhA bl n`f"V ls Hkh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fuEckgsMk dk vkns'k fnukad 19-1-2009 mfpr ugh dgk tk ldrkA 10- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh fpRrkSM+x< }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; mfpr izrhr gksrk gS ftlesa fdlh n[kyUnkth dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% ;g fuxjkuh Bksl vk/kkj ds vHkko esa [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ,oa jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh fpRrkSM+x< dk fu.kZ; fnukad 25-3-2009 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA " 6. Seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that substantial justice having been done by the SDO in granting temporary injunction in5 relation to the ancestral property but not in relation to the selfacquired property of the petitioners, no case for interference was made out; and the RAA and so also the Board have erred in granting and maintaining the blanket injunction against the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that there had not been any justification for granting an injunction in relation to the self-acquired property and such part of orders impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the orders impugned so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. When the plaintiffs have prima facie made out a case that the land in question was ancestral property of the joint family; and the defendants-petitioners failed to show prima facie that a part thereof was the self-acquired property, the orders as passed by the RAA and the Board remain unexceptionable. The said authorities have duly considered the material on record and have found it just and proper to issue temporary injunction against alienation of the land in question and for maintaining status quo until final disposal of the suit. The orders impugned neither suffer from any jurisdictional error nor lead to failure of justice. 9. So far as the order dated 19.01.2009 as passed by the SDO is concerned, it suffered from serious illegality as also impropriety when the Presiding Officer who had not even heard the arguments observed that the stay was being vacated in relation to the selfacquired property as per the previous hearing dated 30.12.2008. It has been pointed out that the Presiding Officer who heard the6 argument on 30.12.2008 had since been transferred. It had been entirely improper and unjustified on the part of the new incumbent that an order was passed with reference to the so-called previous hearing that had not taken place before him. Moreover, the order dated 19.01.2009 had been as cryptic as it could be. Without discussion on anything, the interim order was vacated in relation to so-called self-acquired property and was confirmed in relation to the ancestral property without even specifying as to how and what property was taken as the self-acquired property and as to why the injunction was being granted in part and as to why it was being refused in the other part? Such an order being against all canons of just decision by the Courts, was required to be, and has rightly been, set aside by the RAA; and the Board has not committed any illegality in conforming the order so passed by the RAA.The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******