CHOPRA, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer Annexure-3 dated 28-6-1991 whereby the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has ordered that the petitioners will furnish a cash security @ Rs. 500/- per bigha per year, failing which, it will be deemed that this order has not been passed and for subsequent years also, the petitioners were directed to deposit the cash security latest by 30.6.1991 and so on. The petitioners sought a review of this order and submitted that a solvent cash security @ Rs. 100/- per bigha per year be obtained from them but that review was also rejected.

(2) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that respondent No.5 Smt. Chandrakanta through her General Power of Attorney Holder filed a suit under Ss. 103 and 100 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners on 20.9.1990 with the allegations that in the boundary of village Gulab Ganj, Tehsil Revdar, she owns about 29 Khasras, the total area of which is 130 bighas and 15 biswas and that land stands in her Khatedari. The petitioners are in unlawful possession of these Khasras and, therefore, a decree of ejectment as also a permanent injunction may be passed against them. She has further prayed that till the possession is delivered to her, she may be awarded damages to the extent of 15 times of the land revenue from the defendant-petitioners.

(3) According to plaintiff-respondent No.5, the land in dispute was purchased on 28.9.1966, when she was a minor and thereafter, it is being managed by her grand father and uncle, who are the defendant-petitioners in this case. She has also prayed that the defendants-petitioners may be directed not to enter in the land in dispute and to cultivate it.

(4) A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant- petitioners. According to the defendant-petitioner, the land in question was purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of the plaintiff, who was one of the members of the joint family. Thereafter, about Rs. 4,00,000/- have been spent on it from the joint family funds. According to the petitioners, there is no question of appointment of a Receiver because the property in dispute is in their peaceful possession and hence, no injunction could be granted in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.5.

(5) The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi while discussing the authorities that have been cited before him hold that the plaintiff-respondent No.5 is a Parda Nashin lady and further she belongs to the weaker section of the society and, therefore, in order to safeguard her interest, a Receiver be appointed to look after the entire land in dispute. Tehsildar Revdar was appointed as the Receiver of this property. However, no permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No.5. An appeal against this order was filed and that too came to be dismissed vide order Annexure-2 dated 24.6.1991. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue observed that it appears that the trial court has appointed the Receiver without a specific request being made by the plaintiff, who has simply made an application under s. 212 of the Act and has requested for grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners.

(6) It may be stated that when the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, certain observations were made as regards merits of the case, which was not proper for him. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that there is no dispute regarding old possession of the defendant-petitioners on the land in dispute. The learned single Member of the Board of Revenue has further observed that even if the defendants are in possession without lawful autho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document