The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provisions regarding the appointment of a Receiver and the grant of temporary injunction, as well as the requirement for cash security for cultivation.

1. - The deity, respondent No. 4 through Pujari Ramesh Chandra and Laxman Prasad filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioners. The learned Assistant Collector, Bharatpur was pleased to grant an interim injunction vide order dated 28th August, 1985 and restrained the petitioners from transferring, alienating and/or mortgaging the lands. The learned Assistant Collector vide its order dated 10.3.87 confirmed the aforesaid order but rejected the prayer of appointment of Receiver. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Revenue Appellate Authority who vide its order dated 13th July, 1988 allowed the appeal and directed that in case the petitioners give a cash security at the rate of Rs. 300/- per bigha for the crop of Kharif and Rs. 500/- per bigha for the crop of Rabi till the decision of the suit with the Receiver Tehsildar Bayana, then the petitioners will be having the right to cultivate the land.

2. The petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the judgment dated 13.7.88. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 23.2.95 dismissed the revision petition. But, during the pendency of revision petition, the Board of Revenue passed an interim order dated 28.9.88 in favour of the petitioners.

3. Against the judgment passed by the learned Revenue Appellate dated 13.7.88 and that of Board of Revenue dated 23.2.95, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. Mr. G.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue are against the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995(1) Western Law Cases Page 571 wherein the Full Bench of this Court held as under :

"It is well settled law that de-facto possession is not to be disturbed by the grant of temporary injunction or by appointment of receiver under Section 212 until decree has been obtained in accordance with the due process of law against such party, since question of right or title is not to be decided under Section 212. This section merely provides for interim action pending the disposal of the suit and specifically enumerates the contingencies in which its provisions can be invoked. For deciding application under Section 212, Court is not required to go into merits of the case. The Court is merely required to see the prima facie possession of plaintiff being interfered with by defendant. The Law `does not authorise dispossession of a person who is in possession through application under Section 212 of the Act. In other words the sole object of this section is to preserve the subject-matter in controversy in its existing condition and without determining question of right, merely to prevent the further preparation of wrong or the doing of any act whereby the right in controversy may be materially affected or endangered."

5. Mr. Garg further cites section 212 of the Act which provides that where it is proved that any property is in danger of being wasted or damaged r alienated by any party of the suit or where there is a threatening of dispossession in order to defeat the ends of justice, the court may grant a temporary injunction and if necessary appoint a Receiver. The appointment of receiver being a harsh remedy, normally the receiver should not be appointed. As held by the Board of Revenue in the case of Sultan v. Madhusudan reported in RRD 1986 page 214 .

6. Mr. Garg further submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority without assessing the quality and productivity of the land and the intensity of irrigation and/or irrigation available to the petitioner arbitrarily and without material on record fixed a cash security of sum of Rs. 300/- per bigha for Kharif crop and Rs. 500/- per bigha for Rabi crop, totalling Rs. 800/- per bigha per year.

7. With regard to appoint