Prabhu Dayal Soni vs Sheela Devi And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 7th November, 2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, wherein the order dt. 11th July, 2018, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur was challenged by the petitioner.

The petitioner had filed an application under Sections 111, 128 & 131 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 along with an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur on 30th June, 2016 passed an order of temporary injunction and it was directed that the status quo with regard to possession of the land and record will be maintained and no construction will be made in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1/1023/1 measuring 2 Bigha and 15 Biswa.

The said order dt. 30th June, 2016, was challenged by the respondent No. 1-Sheela Devi before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 11th July, 2018, allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order dt. 30th June, 2016 and further directed that the respondent No. 1-Sheela Devi was to be joined as party in the pending suit and also in the Temporary Injunction application and after hearing all the parties, the case was to be decided by the S.D.O., Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order filed revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and challenged the order dt. 11th July, 2018, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.

The Board of Revenue vide order dt. 7th November, 2019, decided the revision petition & directed the SDO, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 within a period of one month. The Board has further directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and the revenue record. However, it has been directed that if the petitioner will not argue the case before the SDO, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur within a period of one month, the stay order will automatically be vacated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possibly may not have much grievance against remanding the matter back to the SDO, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur to decide the Temporary Injunction application afresh and further to maintain the status quo with regard to possession and the revenue record, however, direction to the extent of vacating the stay order if the arguments are not advanced within a period of one month, would seriously affect the rights of the petitioner and the order is not legally sustainable in the eye of law.

I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in remanding the matter back to the SDO, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, to decide the Temporary Injunction application of the petitioner, as per power conferred under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This Court finds that the direction of maintaining status quo with regard to possession and revenue record has rightly been passed by the Board of Revenue.

This Court finds that directions to the SDO, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur to vacate the stay order, in case, arguments are not advanced before him within a period of one month, affects the right of the petitioner.

The parties are expected to comply with the directions given by the Board of Revenue and they are also required to make their submissions within the stipulated time, however, direction to vacate the said order within a period of one month, does not seem to be justified.

This Court, while upholding the order passed by the Board of Revenue to the extent of giving direction to decide Temporary Injunction application and to maintain status quo, deems it proper to direct the SDO to fix the date for addressing on interim injunction application and further both the parties may make their respective submissions and SDO will pass appropriate order. The direction to vacate the stay order, if the application is not argued within a period of one month, is set aside.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.