ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against judgment dated 6.8.18 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondents no.3 & 4 against the order dated 3.5.18 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sriganganagar, allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against the order of the trial court refusing to appoint receiver of the disputed lands, has been allowed and thus, the order passed by the trial court refusing to appoint receiver stands restored. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioners herein filed a suit under Sections 53, 88 & 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) accompanied by an application under Section 212 of the Act seeking temporary injunction against the respondents herein. The petitioners preferred yet another application for appointment of receiver in respect of the disputed lands. The trial court vide order dated 27.10.15 allowed the application seeking temporary injunction and directed the defendants to maintain the status quo regarding the suit lands and its revenue record, however, vide a separate order of even date, the application seeking appointment of receiver has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before RAA, Sriganganagar, which was allowed vide order dated 3.5.18 and Tehsildar, Sriganganagar was appointed receiver of the property to the extent of share of the petitioners. The respondent no. 3 & 4 herein feeling aggrieved by the order, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in interfering with the order passed by the RAA setting aside the order passed by the SDO, Sriganganagar, declining the prayer of the petitioners for appointment of receiver of the disputed lands. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have proceeded to damage/change the nature of the property and thus, to protect the property during the pendency of the lis between the parties, appointment of receiver thereof is absolutely necessary. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners stand deprived of beneficial use of their property and thus, to protect their rights, the order passed by RAA directing appointment of receiver was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners stand deprived of beneficial use of their property and thus, to protect their rights, the order passed by RAA directing appointment of receiver was not required to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that if the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order of RAA, directing appointment of the receiver cannot be interfered with, the respondents at least deserve to be directed to furnish the cash security in terms of provisions of Section 212 of the Act. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, sub-section (1) of Section 212 of the Act empowers the court to grant temporary injunction and if necessary to appoint a receiver where any property to which the suit or proceedings relates is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto or any party to such suit or proceedings threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of justice. That apart, subsection (2) of Section 212 provides that any person against whom an injunction has been granted or in respect of whose property a receiver has been appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 212 may offer cash security in such amount as court may determine to compensate the opposite party in case the suit or proceedings is decided against such person and depositing the amount of such security, the court may withdraw the injunction or order appointing a receiver, as the case may be. 6. It is true that the matter with regard to appointment of the receiver is within the discretion of the court for the purpose of protecting the rights of the parties and the property subject matter of the suit. But then, the appointment of the receiver cannot be ordered merely because there are conflicting claims to the property. As a matter of fact, for appointment of receiver, the party applying for must shown some emergency or danger or the loss likely to be caused demanding immediate action. But then, the appointment of the receiver cannot be ordered merely because there are conflicting claims to the property. As a matter of fact, for appointment of receiver, the party applying for must shown some emergency or danger or the loss likely to be caused demanding immediate action. Admittedly, the trial court has already granted injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs restraining the petitioners not to alienate the disputed land and also to maintain status quo of the revenue record till the pendency of the suit. Thus, the rights of the respondents stand protected appropriately. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the RAA reveals that the order appointing receiver was passed observing that every person gets attach with his own land and if it is in the hands of third person, the owner remains under doubt that the same is not safe and in such circumstances, the decision to appoint receiver may be taken. To say the least, the order passed by the RAA without there being any justifiable reason as envisaged under Section 212 of the Act delineating the circumstances wherein the receiver may be appointed, is ex facie illegal and capricious. It is not the case set out by the respondents-plaintiffs that the petitioners are trespasser over the disputed land rather, they are co-sharers in possession of the joint holding. As noticed by the Board of Revenue, the appointment of receiver cannot be legally equated with the issuance of order of injunction and thus, the order impugned passed by the RAA appointing receiver without there being any justifiable reason has rightly been set aside by the Board of Revenue. Regarding the cash security, it is always open for the respondents to make an application for varying the order granting injunction passed by the trial court if the circumstances of the case so warrants. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.