Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2133 (RAJ)

Balram v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

2013-11-29

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. K.K.Mehrishi, learned Senior Counsel assisted Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi, for the appellants. 2. In challenge is the order dated 24.10.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9353/2012, whereby the interim order dated 25.2.2013 passed by this Court directing maintenance of status quo of the property involved has been affirmed with a rider requiring the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per year before the jurisdictional Tehsildar to maintain possession thereof. By the order assailed, it has been directed as well that in case the appellant/writ petitioner fail to make the deposit within a period of two months, the jurisdictional Tehsildar would be free to dispossess him from the land. 3. The run up of facts to the institution of the aforementioned writ proceeding, in short, would be necessary. 4. The respondent No.4 herein had instituted a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Kota alongwith an application under Section 212 of the Act for appointment of a Receiver of the suit land. The respondent No.4/plaintiff pleaded, in short, that the Deity, Murti Mandir Shri Pitambarji Maharaj, a minor and represented by his next friend Shri Girvar Singh, was the khatedar of the suit land, and that, the defendants (appellants herein and two others) had illegally got their names registered as khatedars in respect thereof. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.5, initially the names of the appellants/defendants and the co-defendants were erroneously entered in the revenue records as sub-tenant of the suit land, of which it (the Diety) was the khatedar. It was pleaded that the suit land earlier was cultivated in Panti Pilai (partnership) on payment of rent. After the defendants/appellants got their names entered into the revenue records as khatedars, they stopped to do so, and instead, claimed themselves to be the khatedars. A decree was thus prayed for, amongst others, to remove the names of the defendants from the revenue records as khatedars and to re-register the name of the Deity in respect thereof. 5. After the defendants/appellants got their names entered into the revenue records as khatedars, they stopped to do so, and instead, claimed themselves to be the khatedars. A decree was thus prayed for, amongst others, to remove the names of the defendants from the revenue records as khatedars and to re-register the name of the Deity in respect thereof. 5. The appellants/defendants submitted their written statement along with counterclaim in the suit, in substance, contending that the suit land earlier was of muafi of the deity and was cultivated by Madholal, the father of the appellant/defendant Balram as a tenant, and that, on his demise, appellant/defendant-Balram had been continuing with the agricultural pursuit in the same capacity. According to the defendants, with the enactment of the Act and the resumption of the muafi of the plaintiff, its khatedari right therein became extinct, and instead, the defendants who were in possession of the land as tenants, became the khatedars thereof. 6. In the application under Section 212 of the Act filed by the respondent No.4/plaintiff for appointment of a Receiver, it was stated that the defendants had been using the land to its detriment and prejudice without offering any return of the use and utility enjoyed by them. The respondent/plaintiff, while insisting for appointment of a Receiver, in the alternative, prayed that if the defendants are allowed to possess the suit land, they ought to be required to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per year, so that its interest remains secured till the final adjudication of the suit. 7. The defendants resisted this prayer as well on the ground of lack of any title of the plaintiff in the suit land. They denied the allegation of wrongful use thereof to its detriment and prejudice, as alleged. The learned Sub Division Officer, by order dated 21.12.2000, on this application for appointment of Receiver, directed the defendants to deposit cash security of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per year for retaining possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The appellants/defendants having unsuccessfully appealed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, approached this Court for redress. The learned Single Judge, to reiterate, at the first instance, by order dated 25.2.2013, directed maintenance of status quo of the suit land. The appellants/defendants having unsuccessfully appealed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, approached this Court for redress. The learned Single Judge, to reiterate, at the first instance, by order dated 25.2.2013, directed maintenance of status quo of the suit land. However, while adjudicating the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent No.4/plaintiff, though the order of status quo was maintained, the appellants/defendants were required to deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per year before the Tehsildar concerned. It was observed as well that if the deposit, as ordered, was not made within a period of two months, the jurisdictional Tehsildar would be free to dispossess the appellants/defendants from the suit land. 8. Mr. Mehrishi has argued that as on the face of the records, respondent No.5/plaintiff, with the advent of the Act, had been divested of khatedari right in the suit land, which in fact had devolved on the appellants/defendants, they were in rightful possession thereof, and thus, could not have been saddled with the liability of making any deposit, as ordered. According to the learned senior counsel, the essential pre-requisites for invoking Section 212 of the Act, being conspicuously absent, the application for appointment of a Receiver ought to have been dismissed in limine. 9. Upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellants and on a consideration of the pleaded facts to the extent necessary to address the issue raised, we are not convinced by the tenability of these contentions at this stage. 10. Admittedly, the suit is pending, in which, the issues based on contentious rival pleadings of the parties, await adjudication on merits. The suit land is in possession of the appellants/defendants. The lawful claim thereto is yet to be finally decided. It stands to logic thus that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land ought to be preserved, so much so, that the decree to be passed eventually, is not rendered fruitless with the passage of time. The suit land is in possession of the appellants/defendants. The lawful claim thereto is yet to be finally decided. It stands to logic thus that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land ought to be preserved, so much so, that the decree to be passed eventually, is not rendered fruitless with the passage of time. This is visibly the underlying objective of Section 212 of the Act, more particularly, sub-section (2) thereof, where under any person against whom an injunction is granted or in respect of whose property, a Receiver has been appointed, may offer cash security of such amount, as the court may determine, to compensate the opposite party, in case the suit or proceeding is decided against such persons, and that, on depositing the amount of such security, the court may withdraw the injunction or the order appointing a Receiver, as the case may be. 11. In the attendant facts and circumstances, pending final adjudication of the dispute on merits, the order passed permitting the appellants/defendants to be in possession of the land and requiring them to make the deposit, as aforementioned, in our comprehension, accords with the letter and spirit of the above-referred legal provision. 12. We have perused the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Kota, Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer as well. 13. According to us, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is unassailable on facts and in law. No interference therewith is thus called for. 14. The appeal is dismissed. The stay application is also rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******