JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.07.2009 disposing of revision petition filed u/S.230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 modifying the order of the RAA, Sikar dated 17.07.2004. 2. It will be relevant to quote modification which was made by the Board of Revenue while disposing of the revision petition which reads as under:- " nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fookfnr Hkwfe ds LoRo dks ysdj fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa okn fopkjk/khu gS] tgka LoRo ds laca/k esa vafre fu.kZ; fd;k tk,xkA ;g fd lgk;d dyDVj] lhdj us izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh Fkh ftls jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 17-7-2004 ls fujLr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ okn ds fuLrkj.k rd fookfnr Hkwfe ij viuk dCtk cnLrwj j[kuk pkgrk gSA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa izkFkhZ }kjk okn ds fuLrkj.k rd ds'k flD;ksfjVh tek djkus ij dCtk izkFkhZ ds ikl j[kk tk ldrk gSA " " ;g fuxjkuh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] lhdj dk vkns'k fnukad 17-7-2004 bl 'krZ ds lkFk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ :0 500@& ( :i;s ikap lkS ) izfr ch?kk izfr Qly okn ds fu.kZ; rd rglhy dk;kZy; esa tek djk;sA ;g jkf'k ,d ekg esa tek ugha djkus ij jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh dk vkns'k izHkko esa vk tk;sxkA lkFk gh fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks okn dk fu.kZ; ;FkklaHko N% ekg esa djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA " 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner earlier approached to this Court by filing CWP-4763/1998 assailing the proceedings of reference initiated against him u/S.82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 before the Board of Revenue and the plea raised by the petitioner was that he is bonafide purchaser of the land in question which he purchased from the holder who was having khatedari rights as such the very reference made by the Tehsildar u/S.82 of the Land Revenue Act cannot be held to be justified qua present petitioner. However, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.1999. However, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.1999. In the pending suit before the learned Revenue Court the petitioner moved application u/S.212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for grant of interim relief which was granted by the learned Revenue Court but in appeal before RAA the interim relief granted to him by the learned revenue court came to be rejected vide order dated 17.07.2004 on a revision petition being preferred by the present petitioner which certainly arises from the proceedings initiated for grant of interim relief u/R.212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the Board of Revenue modified the order to the extent that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 500/- per bigha per crop in the office of Tehsildar he may continue with the possession and it was further observed that revenue suit may be decided preferably within six months. It has been informed to this Court that suit has not been decided so far. 4. Counsel submits that once the petitioner has been held to be bonafide purchaser of the land in question which he purchased from the person who came to be recorded as Khatedar, at least the condition which has been imposed by the Board of Revenue under its order impugned dated 16.07.2009 calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 500/- per bigha per crop cannot be held to be justified and certainly he will abide by the final decision arises out of the revenue suit and thus the condition is wholly uncalled for and deserves to be quashed. 5. 500/- per bigha per crop cannot be held to be justified and certainly he will abide by the final decision arises out of the revenue suit and thus the condition is wholly uncalled for and deserves to be quashed. 5. From the material on record, title over the land in question is under dispute and that will be decided by the learned revenue court in the pending suit and if the petitioner is considered to be bonafide purchaser of the land in question as alleged that he purchased from the person who was claiming to be recorded khatedar and if at all was entitled to retain possession over the land in question which he has transferred to the present petitioner and in the pending revenue suit when the land was recorded in the name of deity being a perpetual minor, this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as title dispute before the learned revenue court is concerned but the title of the property is yet to be examined and determined by the learned revenue court, the learned Board of Revenue if as an interim arrangement considered it appropriate to direct that if the petitioner wants to retain possession over the disputed land in question he may do so while depositing Rs. 500/- per bigha per crop, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Board of Revenue while exercising judicial discretion in passing the order impugned dated 16.07.2009 disposing of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner but at the same time this Court considers it appropriate to observe that once the revision petition was disposed of with direction to decide the pending revenue suit within the time framework, it is expected from the learned revenue court below to decide the suit expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. This Court does not find any substance in the instant petition which accordingly stands dismissed with the observations made (supra).Petition dismissed. *******