Shree Prakash vs Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dt. 06.07.2012, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer refusing to exercise its revising power under Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter ''the Act of 1955'') and not interfering with the order dt. 17.04.2012, passed by the RAA, Jaipur. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dt. 06.07.2012, passed by the Board of Revenue, the order dt. 17.04.2012, passed by the RAA as also the order dt. 12.03.2012, passed by the SDO, Kotputli.

From the facts as evident from the file, it transpires that in the suit for declaration, injunction and correction of entries filed by the petitioner as plaintiff before the SDO, Kotputli on the accompanying application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955, vide order dt. 12.03.2012 the SDO Kotputli passed an ex-parte ad-interim order directing to maintain status quo till 09.04.2012. It appears that thereafter the interim order was not extended. Consequently, the respondents-defendants had moved an appeal before the RAA, Jaipur whereupon the RAA, Jaipur on the basis of the record before it concluded that as the ad-interim ex-parte order was limited to 09.04.2012 and had not thereafter been extended, the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was not maintainable. The RAA, Jaipur directed the SDO, Kotputli to dispose of the application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the next date of hearing.

The application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955 at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff admittedly is pending before the SDO, Kotputli. The counsel for the petitioner submits that an application has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the SDO, Kotputli to dispose of the application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955 and pass orders thereon but to no avail.

In the facts of the case, as the application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955 is pending before the SDO, Kotputli, even while not interfering with the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 06.07.2012 or that of the RAA, Jaipur passed on 17.04.2012, I would direct the SDO, Kotputli to dispose of the petitioner-plaintiff''s application under Sec. 212 of the Act of 1955 in the suit for declaration, injunction and correction of entries filed by him within two weeks of the next date fixed for hearing in the suit/application. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Stay application also stands dismissed in view of the petition being dismissed.