Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment dated 20.6.2006 passed by this Bench in Revision/TA/2258/2005/Sriganganagar.

2. Briefly, the facts of this review are that the petitioner submitted a suit under Sections 88, 91 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, which is still pending. In this suit an application for injunction was made before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by Richhpal Singh praying that the non-petitioners be prevented from interfering in possession of the petitioner and also should be restrained from transferring the disputed land to anybody. An another application was also made by the non-petitioners for getting injunction against the petitioner for the same purpose. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer consolidated both the applications and legitimately came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of a quarrel between the parties and there is allegation of threatened alienation and he found that it would be proper for the maintenance of peace and protection of the interest of the parties that receiver be appointed. An appeal against this order was made before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by the present petitioner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by his order dated 7.5.2005 found the property in medio and found that the order of appointing a receiver was proper in the circumstances of this case. He also ordered that the parties are free to make request under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the trial Court. Aggrieved against the order of appointment of receiver, the petitioner came to this Court and obtained stay order against auction of the land for agricultural purposes. The stay is continuing and the auction which was made, had a bid of Rs. 95,000/- is in medio and the land could not be cultivated and loss of Rs. 95,000/-has occurred. By a revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur for appointing receiver and had also requested to take the land on cash security under Section 212(2) of the R.T. Act. This revision petition was rejected by the Board of Revenue through the judgment under review.

3. Arguing in support of the petition the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that there is error apparent on the face of the record in he order of this Bench dated 20.6.06 in Revision/TA/2258/2005/ Sriganganagar. this order is full of contradictions because on the one hand order of appointment of receiver has been upheld and on the other hand parties have been asked to approach learned Sub-Divisional Officer. He argued that there are sufficient reasons for acceptance of review in this case as per 2005 RRD page 592. He also argued that this property is not in medio and learned Bench has made a mistake by accepting the property in medio. The possession was with the petitioner and possession should be returned to the petitioner. In support of his argument he invited our attention to 1989 RRD page 160 and 402. Receiver is the harshest remedy and this cannot be utilised for ejectment of person in possession. He invited out attention to AIR 1996 SC 936. He also argued that this review petition may be accepted and the order of Single Bench may be set aside.

4. Having heard learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and having carefully perused the review petition and having carefully examined the decision given by this Bench, I come to the following conclusions:–

(a) The arguments advanced by learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner have already been discussed at length in the impugned order passed by this Bench. The issues of property in medio and the issues regarding justification of appointing a receiver have all been discussed in detail. Once these issues have already bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document