1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2241/2008 MOHD. MUNSHI V. STATE OF RAJ. & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 04/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Yogesh Verma), for Petitioner (s). Mr. J.S.Rathore ) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2007, passed by the Board of Revenue. The facts relevant to the present writ petition are that a suit was decreed pursuant to the ex parte proceedings against the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners, therefore, moved an application and pursuant to the said application, the suit has been taken up for hearing and while taking the same for hearing, the Court below passed order for maintaining the status quo and restraining the petitioner to alienate the property. The petitioner approached the Board of Revenue by maintaining a revision petition against the interim order and therein, at the first instance, the parties were directed to maintain status quo and now, by final order also, a direction has been given to the parties to maintain the 2 status quo and a further direction has been given to the petitioner not to alienate the property and at the same time, the contempt petition was also decided. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order of status quo, they are not permitted to cultivate the land. Thus, clarification may be made that they being in possession, allowed to cultivate the land, inasmuch as status quo should not be construed to mean that the petitioners are not entitled to cultivate the land. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that respondent is in possession of the land thus, petitioner cannot seek direction of cultivation of land by him. Since the impugned order is only an interim order, thus this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, will not interfere in the order, which otherwise is just and proper. It is, however, made clear that status quo order should not mean denying cultivation of land by party in possession, however, above observation would not apply if possession of the party is clear or ascertained by the Court below. The Court below may, 3 however, decide the matter as early as possible. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd