Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 966
[Citation : RLW 2012(1) RJ 60]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
Jagdish Singh & Anr. Vs. Ramkaran & Ors. (Dr. Tiwari, M.)
DR. G.K. TIWARI, MEMBER
Jagdish Singh & Anr.
Versus
Ramkaran & Ors.
Revision/TA/1867-68/1998/Tonk, decided on 22.09.2011
Yogendra Singh (Brief Holder), for Petitioners;
Rod Mal (Brief Holder), for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 212 — Grant of Temporary injunction against recorded khatedar — Non-petitioners claimed khatedari right on the basis of mortgage in possession and adverse possession — Held — The above position cannot be ground for grant of temporary injunction u/S. 212 of the Act — Petitioners are khatedar tenants on the basis of registered sale deed — Trial Court rejected the application u/S. 212 for want of prima facie case in favour of non-petitioners but RAA without setting aside the judgement of trial Court issued order for maintaining status quo in appeal u/S. 225 of the Act — An application u/S. 212 should be finally decided either with the grant or rejection of temporary injunction — Such application cannot be finally decided with an order for maintaining status quo — Unless gross illegality is demonstrably shown to have crept in, no temporary injunction should be granted against recorded khatedar.
(Paras 7, 8)
The trial Court rejected the application under Section 212 of the Act for the want of prima facie case in favour of the non-petitioners, but Revenue Appellate Authority, without setting aside the judgment of Assistant Collector Tonk, issued order for maintaining status quo of the land and record by way of disposal of both the appeals filed before him under Section 225 of the Act. It has been consistently held by this Court that an application of Section 212 of the Act should be finally decided either with the grant or rejection of the temporary injunction; such application cannot be finally decided with an order for maintaining status quo of the land and record. Unless gross illegality is demonstrably shown to have crept in, no temporary injunction should be granted against recorded khatedars. (Para 7)
jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 212 & ntZ [kkrsnkj ds fo:) vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk iznku djuk & vizkFkhZ us cU/kdnkj ds :i esa dkfct gksus rFkk izfrdwy dCts ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkj vf/kdkj dk nkok fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mDr fLFkfr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 212 ds rgr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk iznku djus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrh & izkFkhZx.k iaftd`r foØ; foys[k ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vizkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa izFke n`"V;k ekeys ds vHkko esa /kkjk 212 ds rgr vkosnu fujLr fd;k ysfdu vkj-,-,- us fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;s fcuk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 225 ds rgr vihy esa ;Fkk fLFkfr cuk;s j[kus gsrq vkns'k tkjh fd;k & /kkjk 212 ds rgr vkosnu dks ;k rks vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk iznku dj ;k fujLr dj vfUre :i ls fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & ,sls vkosnu dks ;Fkk fLFkfr cuk;s j[kus gsrq vkns'k ds lkFk vfUre :i ls fofuf'pr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & tc rd LFkwy voS/kkfudrk Li"V :i ls vk;h gqbZ ugha n'kkZ;h tkrh rc rd ,d ntZ [kkrsnkj ds fo:) dksbZ vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk iznku ugha dh tkuh pkfg;sA ¼in la[;k 7] 8½
iqujh{k.k Lohdkj dhA
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the non-petitioners, during the course of a regular suit filed in the court of Assistant Collector Tonk, submitted applications under Section 212 of the Act against the petitioners for the grant of temporary injunction in respect of the suit lands. These applications were rejected by Assistant Collector vide his judgments dated 24.11.1997. The non-petitioners challenged the judgments dated 24.11.1997 in appeals under Section 225 of the Act before Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority Tonk who allowed the appeals and enjoined upon both the parties for maintaining status quo of the land and record till disposal of the final suit, by his impugned judgments dated 2.4.1998 passed in appeal No. 166/97 and 167/97. Aggrieved against it, above cited two revision petitions are preferred in this court.
3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are presently recorded khatedars of the disputed lands. The non-petitioners want khatedari rights claiming to be mortgagee-in-possession of the disputed lands; at the same time they are claiming to be in adverse possession of the suit lands. Both these issues can be decided in the main suit after framing of the necessary issues and leading evidence thereon. Presently the non-petitioners do not have any prima facie case in their favour. On the contrary the petitioners are the prima facie title holders in possession of the lands in question. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the applications of temporary injunction. But Revenue Appellate Authority illegally allowed the appeals and restrained both the parties with an order for maintaining status quo of land and records, without setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. The learned counsel contended that a matter of section 212 of the Act cannot be finally decided by an order for maintaining status quo of the land and record. Such a case should either bee allowed or rejected with specific order. The learned counsel submitted 2009(2) RRT 1393, 2003 RRD 264, 2009(2) RRT 1398 and 2010(1) RRT 149 in support of his contention.
5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel (brief-holders) for the non-petitioners contended that the petitioners are claiming khatedari right on the basis of the registered sale deed of the disputed lands; but these sale deeds are not produced and such sale of the disputed lands is not proved so far. As such there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Revenue Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality in giving order for maintaining status quo of land and record in his final judgment of appeals under Section 225 of the Act.
6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the material on record.
7. Admittedly, the non-petitioners, who have filed an application under Sec. 212 of the Act for the grant of temporary injunction, do not have prima facie title in their favour so far. The non-petitioners are claiming khatedari right on the suit lands on the basis of their being allegedly mortgagee-in-possession, as also on the basis of the alleged adverse possession. The plea of alleged adverse possession and being mortgagee-in-possession cannot be ground for grant of temporary injunction under section 212 of the Act. On the contrary the petitioners, presently, are the khatedar tenants of the suit lands on the basis of registered sale deed. The trial Court rejected the application under Section 212 of the Act for the want of prima facie case in
