1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7772/2008 (Ramdeo & anr. Vs. State & ors.) Date of Order :: 23rd October 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit for the petitioners BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this matter in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction; and this writ petition does not merit admission. The petitioners have filed this writ petition stating the facts that they are the persons belonging to a Scheduled Caste and are the khatedars of the land bearing khasra Nos. 714, 714/1 and 714/2 at revenue village Makrana; that when they had gone to Delhi to earn their livelihood, certain persons encroached over the aforesaid land and hence, after returning, they filed an application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955'); that in the meantime, the Tehsildar, Makrana moved an application under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956') on the allegation that the said land has been put to non- agricultural use. 2 The petitioners have pointed out that the said application under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 was allowed on 30.05.2002 but the appeals filed against such orders were allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer on 27.11.2007 (Annex.3); and the matter was remanded to the authorised officer to deal with the application under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Tehsildar, Makrana, on the other hand, proceeded to allow the application moved by the petitioners under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955 on 13.02.2008 (Annex.4) and, accordingly, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioners on 17.02.2008 (Annex.5). However, in appeal, the operation of the said order dated 13.02.2008 was stayed by the Appellate Authority i.e., the Additional Collector , Deedwana by way of an interim order dated 20.02.2008 (Annex.6). It is further pointed out that against the said order dated 20.02.2008, the petitioners preferred a writ petition to this Court bearing number 1417/2008, wherein operation of the order dated 20.02.2008 was stayed on 26.02.2008; and thereafter, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 25.03.2008 (Annex.10) directing the said Additional Collector to decide the appeal within two months and status quo in relation to the property in question was ordered to be maintained. It has further been 3 averred that the Additional Collector proceeded to allow the appeal on 28.05.2008 (Annex.11) and directed the Tehsildar concerned to hold enquiry in accordance with law. The grievance has been stated by the petitioners that while passing the said order dated 28.05.2008, the learned Appellate Authority has not specifically directed status quo in relation to the land in question to be maintained, as was earlier ordered by this Court and, according to the petitioners, the private respondents are trying to interfere with their possession and, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is in the interest of justice that status quo is ordered to be maintained. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that of course some of the respondents have compromised the matter with the petitioners but some of them are continuing with the litigation and are trying to encroach over the land in question that remains in possession of the petitioners and, therefore, interim relief ought to have been granted by the Appellate Authority in the interest of justice so as to protect the possession of the petitioners. The submissions are lacking in requisite force; and do not make out any case interference in writ jurisdiction. By the order dated 28.05.2008, the learned Additional Collector has proceeded to accept the three appeals and has 4 set aside the order dated 13.02.2008 as passed by the Tehsildar, Makrana. It has, inter alia, been observed by the learned Appellate Authority that as per the current jamabandi of Svt. Years 2062-2065, the land was recorded jointly in the name of one Devbux and the present petitioners; and Devbux allegedly sold his share in favour of the appellants. However, according to the Appellate Authority, when the entire matter was pending before the authorised officer, and it was not possible to identify particular portion in possession of a particular person in this land of joint khatedari, it was not proper to take up the other proceedings. The learned Appellate Authority has also noted the submissions as made by the present petitioners in the compromise that they were not desirous of the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955. Thus, while allowing the appeals, the learned Additional Collector has set aside the order dated 13.02.2008; and then, has observed that if, after the decision of the authorised officer, the land would continue to remain in khatedari and not vesting in the municipality, and any case of violation of Section 183B/42 of the Act of 1955 be made out because of sale or agreement or compromise, the Tehsildar shall adopt appropriate proceedings after carrying out the requisite enquiry. 5 The order aforesaid cannot be read to be an order directly remitting the matter to the Tehsildar. On the contrary, the order as passed by the Tehsildar on 13.02.2008 has specifically been set aside by the Appellate Authority after finding no justification for adopting the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.05.2008, the occasion for Tehsildar to take up any enquiry would arise only after termination of the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, if the land in question would at all remain a khatedari land. This Court is unable to find any reason that while passing the order dated 28.05.2008, particularly on the considerations as adopted, the Appellate Authority would have passed any order of maintaining status quo regarding the land in question. So far the arrangement made by this Court while passing the order dated 25.03.2008 is concerned, noticeable it is that the said order was passed by this Court more in the balance of equities when the writ petition was preferred against the interim order dated 20.02.2008; and this Court considered it just and proper to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal within a period of two months; and, for this period of two months, status quo then existing was ordered to be maintained. The said order passed by this Court in the balance of equities at the given stage of 6 proceedings cannot enure to the advantage of the petitioners to the extent that even when allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 13.02.2008, the Appellate Authority would have yet made any order of maintaining status quo as suggested by the petitioners. The submissions as made in this writ petition remain totally bereft of substance; and no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. So far the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 are concerned, the same are required to be dealt with by the authorised officer pursuant to the remand order dated 27.11.2007 (Annex.3). If the petitioners have any grievance to state before the said authority dealing with the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, they are obviously free to do so in accordance with law. Moreover, if the petitioners choose to take resort to any other appropriate remedy, they may do so, of course, in accordance with law but in any case, for the submissions as made and the position of record as standing, this Court is unable to find any reason or ground to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK 7