A mortgage of land subject to an injunction is a violation of the injunction, but the attachment of the land for violation of the injunction cannot continue beyond one year.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - This Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), in a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"), whereby the order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority has been set aside and the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar dated 22.03.2017 has been restored.

2. Facts relevant for the present case are that the respondent filed a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955, alongwith a stay petition under Section 212 of the Act, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar. The Trial Court decided the stay application on 09.10.2000 and restrained the defendant-present petitioner from transferring 12 Bighas land of Murrabba No.39 of the Chak 39 in any manner.

3. The petitioner, however, took a loan and created security interest upon the land in question on 16.02.2008.

4. Being aware of the factum of mortgaging the disputed land, the respondents moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer found the present petitioner guilty of violation of ad-interim injunction granted by it and attached the land admeasuring 3.036 Hectare (including the land in dispute belonging to petitioner) and appointed Tehsildar 'Muklava' as a Receiver.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the above referred order dated 22.03.2017, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who allowed the same by way of order vide dated 14.09.2017, while observing that since the appellant-present petitioner was prepared to deposit the entire loan amount and produce "no dues certificate", the extreme action of appointing receiver was not warranted.

7. With a view to challenge the order dated 14.09.2017, the respondent preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 230 of the Act of 1955, which came to be allowed by the Board, vide its order dated 08.05.2019. While setting aside the order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, learned member of the Board, restored the order dated 22.03.2017, passed by the SDO.

8. The petitioner is before this Court, under its supervisory jurisdiction, vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a bid to get the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by the Board and the order dated 22.03.2017, passed by the SubDivisional Officer set aside/reversed.

9. Mr. D.S. Thind, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that after filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has deposited the entire loan amount, which he had taken while creating security interest on the contentious land. A "no dues certificate" has also been placed on record, he added.

10. Challenging the order impugned passed by the Board, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had taken a loan and mortgaged the land in question under bonafide impression that the same did not amount to transfer and, thus, would not be in conflict with the order of injunction dated 09.10.2000, passed by the learned SDO.

11. It was also argued that even if it is assumed that taking of loan against the land in question was a breach of the interim order, the SDO ought not to have passed the extreme order of attachment of his land. He submitted that as a result of attachment of the land, petitioner's sole source of livelihood has been snatched.

12. Pointing out that the attachment in question was made on 22.03.2017 and the same is continuing even till today, he argued that in no case the attachment can continue beyond the period of one year, as provided in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code.

13. Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, argued that the fact that