SHARMA, M.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Act) being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority/Sriganganagar on 3.5.2012 in appeal on 69/2012.

2. The brief facts of the case in hand are that the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6 filed a regular suit under Sections 88, 188 of the Act against the petitioners in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanpur. Along with the regular suit an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act was also filed by the non-petitioners. The Trial Court issued temporary injunction on 29.7.2005 and restrained the petitioners to maintain status quo pertaining to record of the disputed land. The petitioners filed first appeal in the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Shri Ganganager being dissatisfied by the order of the Trial Court. And the Appellate Court passed an ad interim order staying the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the Trial Court. In the meanwhile, the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6 also filed a separate application before the Revenue appellate Authority, Sriganganagar requesting him for maintenance of status quo of record and possession on the disputed land. The learned Appellate Court accepted the application filed by the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6 on 3.5.2012 and passed the impugned order. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar has been assailed in this revision petition before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on admission of the revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners are the members of the Schedule Castes and the land in dispute is in their khatedari. Therefore, any such sale or transfer of the disputed land in favour of the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6, who are not the members of the Scheduled Caste, is not legally enforceable under Section 42 of the Act. Moreover, such an alienation is against the public policy of the State. He further argued that the learned Appellate Court did not consider the requisite ingredients before issuing the temporary injunction like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The non-petitioners do not have a prima facie case in their favour nor the balance of convenience is with them and in such a case no irreparable loss can be incurred to them because the disputed land belongs to the petitioners who are from the weaker sections of the society and who have been provided legal protection under the law. He also argued that this Court is fully empowered under Section 221 of this Act to correct the material irregularities committed by the subordinate Revenue Courts and such an illegal and perverse impugned order deserves to be set aside in order to protect the legal rights of the petitioners. He finally urged that the order passed by the Appellate Court is a non-speaking and arbitrary order which requires to be quashed in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He took support from the citations referred in RRD 1992 - 201, 1994 RBJ 50, 2009 RBJ 396, 2009 RRT 576, 1990 RRD 212, 2003(2) RRT 780 and 2008 RRT 1197.

5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that the order passed by the Appellate Court is a legally sustainable order as the disputed land was sold by the father of the petitioners on 27.6.1960 through a registered sale deed and possession was handed over at the time of execution of the sale-deed. The petitioners also field a suit for ejectment against the non-petitioners which was dismissed on 18.3.1995. In relation to the disputed land the State Government also filed a case under Section 175 of the Act which was also dismissed on 10.7.1975. He submitted that Section 42 of the Act was amended on 1.5.1964, therefore, the sale deed executed in this case is not void and the non-petitioners are in continuous possession of the disputed land and the limitation for restoration of possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document