Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2281 (RAJ)

Harak Chand v. Shailendra Singh

2013-12-16

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. Admittedly in the suit filed by the petitioners, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioners for granting temporary injunction. The learned S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction in the revenue suit on the ground that there is no material evidence on record with regard to possession and there is affidavit of Ramjus that he is not in possession. 3. The order passed by the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara was further challenged by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara and Revenue Appellate Authority reversed the finding granted in the order in favor of the petitioners in the appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dated 24.11.2000. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are auction purchasers of the land in question and they were in possession of the land in question, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal rightly granted in favor of the petitioner while setting aside the order passed by the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara in which there was no illegality but Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the revision petition filed by the respondents set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and restored the order passed by the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the ground upon which the Board of Revenue, Ajmer set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is not tenable in law because they were two affidavit and contents of the affidavits were considered by the Revenue Appellate Authority and this fact is completely ignored by the Board of Revenue on new ground, therefore, the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority has been set aside vide judgment dated 27.8.2012, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue may be quashed and the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority dated 24.11.2000 may be restored. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the suit is pending before the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara since 1999 and from last 14 years, the litigation is going on only for the purpose of temporary injunction and matter is yet to be decided by the Trial Court whether who is in possession. 7. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the suit is pending before the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara since 1999 and from last 14 years, the litigation is going on only for the purpose of temporary injunction and matter is yet to be decided by the Trial Court whether who is in possession. 7. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara is directed to decide the suit itself expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.Petition dismissed. *******