DIXIT, M. — This revision has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (thereafter referred as the Act) against the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar dated 11.11.2004 in appeal No. 41/04.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that the respondents in the present case Lekhram had filed a suit in the Court of S.D.O. Sriganganagar along with an application under Section 213 read with Section 151 CPC pleading therein that the plaintiff/respondent was an Ex-serviceman and was also a member of a registered Ex-serviceman Combined Agricultural Society Ltd. chak 14 SPM. the plaintiff respondent was allotted 23.09 bigha land in chak 14 SPM in that capacity and the possession of the land was handed to the plaintiff-respondents. The title deed in the name of the above Society was issued on 25.8.72. In the meantime, Lekhram was disassociated from that Society and the above land was transferred in the name of one Kapildev on 18.11.1956. Kapildev then transferred this land to Ranveer Singh, the applicant/defendant. Meanwhile, the Assistant Registrar in compliance of the orders of Honble Rajasthan High Court passed an order to remove the name of Kapildev and restore the name of Lekhram on 27.1.1981. An appeal was made by Kapildev to the designated authority which was finally rejected on 29.11.1983 and a Writ Petition No. 157/81 preferred against this order was dismissed on 15.9.94. Lekhram then filed a suit for declaration in the Trial Court along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 212 along with application under Section 151 CPC against which an appeal was preferred in the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar, which was accepted on 11.11.2004 and an order imposing cash security was passed against which this revision has been preferred.

(3). Putting forth his contentions the counsels for the applicant cited 2004 (1) RLW Rajasthan page 158 to state that the Honble Rajasthan High Court has laid down five principles for appointment of receiver and the case of the non-applicant does not fall within the province of these five principles. He also stated that the order of the Trial Court was reversed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. In his order the Revenue Appellate Authority, has not held the property to be in medio and has yet ordered for cash security in respect of a property under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. the approach of the Revenue Appellate Authority is against the provisions of Section 212(2). The suit was for declaration and ejectment and the relief identical to that which is asked for in the suit cannot be granted through a temporary injunction application. The title has not been proved. The findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority are based on an Ikrarnama. He has gone beyond the pleadings. 1997 DNJ Part I SC 133 has laid down the principles of appointment of receiver and violation of these principles is a material irregularity. He cited 1992 RLW Volume 1 Rajasthan page 592. He also cited 2003 RRD page 148, 2002 RRD page 620, 1982 RRD page 234 Head Note (b) in this regard. He also stated that the appellant/defendants possession has been admitted and this cannot be disturbed through a temporary injunction.

(4). Before submitting his reply the learned counsel for the non- petitioner tried to wriggle out of arguments twice by putting forth frivolous objections and twice submitted applications for releasing the matter. Applications being frivolous and without any basis were rejected. After these the counsel for the non- applicants made their submissions and stated that he has made a clear averment in para 7 of his application before the Trial Court that the land was in clear danger of being wasted. The title of the land is clearly under dispute because the transfer is through an unregistered power of attorney. No suit for specific performance was filed by the transferee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document