1 24 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7026/2006. Rameshwar Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 12th December 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, GC ] Mr. D.L.R. Vyas for ] Mr. B.M. Bohra ], for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner to seeks to question the part of the order dated 06.10.2006 as passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 6063/2006 whereby the Board, even while admitting the appeal as preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.08.2006 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara, has refused the prayer for interim relief. In brief, the background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No. 7 moved an application to the Collector, Chittorgarh under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for providing him the land in question, comprised in Araji Nos. 169 and 170 at village Bansati, for mining purposes after determination of compensation payable to the person entitled therefor. The petitioner being the khatedar of the land in question and being not agreeable to provide the land to the respondent No.7 was heard on the application and the learned 2 Collector, after noticing all the facts and circumstances including the fact that the land in question was otherwise falling within the area granted in lease to the respondent No.7, proceeded to order that such land be provided after the respondent No.7 would deposit the determined amount of compensation. The order so passed by the Collector on 18.04.2006 (Annex.2) was questioned by the petitioner in an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara who proceeded to issue an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 08.05.2006 but then, vacated the same on 15.06.2006 after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the respondent No.7 made an application to the Collector, Chittorgarh on 17.06.2006 for delivery of possession of the land to him and thereupon the Collector passed the order on 17.06.2006 itself directing the Tehsildar to deliver the possession of the land in question to the respondent No.7 after noticing the fact that the respondent No.7 did offer the requisite amount of compensation before the Tehsildar by way of cheque and the said cheque had been sent to the District Judge, Pratapgarh, Camp-Chittorgarh for placing the amount in civil deposit. The order so passed by the Collector on 17.06.2006 was separately challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, being Revision Petition No. 4100/2006. However, in the meantime, the Revenue 3 Appellate Authority, Bhilwara proceeded to decide the appeal as preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 31.08.2006 (Annex. 4) and, particularly with reference to the fact that the possession of the land in question had been delivered to the respondent No.7, considered the appeal to be redundant and also observed that there was nothing illegal or irregular in the order as passed by the Collector, Chittorgarh on 18.04.2006. The Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue, by its order dated 19.09.2006 (Annex. 5), proceeded to dismiss the aforesaid revision petition as preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.06.2006 with the observations that the subject-matter of the said revision petition was reduced to that of academic relevance particularly for the reason that on 31.08.2006, the Revenue Appellate Authority had already dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the principal order passed by the Collector on 18.04.2006. However, the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2006 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in dismissal of the appeal preferred by him has been challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 6063/2006. The said Appeal No. 6063/2006 was taken up for 4 consideration by the Board of Revenue on 06.10.2006 and, after noticing the rival submissions and perusing the orders of the subordinate courts, the learned Member of the Board came to conclusion that there were legal issues involved in the matter and the appeal was fit to be admitted for hearing. The appeal was, therefore, admitted and the concerning record was summoned. However, so far the prayer for interim relief was concerned, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member of the Board was of opinion that prima facie case was in favour of the private respondent (respondent No. 7 herein) and so also the balance of convenience. The learned Member, finding no justification for issuance of stay order, proceeded to reject the prayer for interim relief. As noticed, this writ petition has been preferred against the part of the order dated 06.10.2006 (Annex.6) whereby the prayer for interim relief had been refused. It has been pointed out during the course of submissions by the learned counsel for the parties that the said appeal (No. 6063/2006) remains pending before the Board of Revenue but is ripe for hearing and, as per their information, is posted for hearing in the week commencing 15th inst. Thus, the issue sought to be raised in this writ petition relates only to the prayer for interim relief that was refused by 5 the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 06.10.2006. In this writ petition, show cause notices were ordered to be issued on 08.12.2006 but without any interim order. So far the question of grant of interim relief during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Board of Revenue is concerned, the net position obtainable is that as back as on 06.10.2006, the Board of Revenue declined to grant any interim relief to the petitioner and the same status has hitherto continued. Prior to the order so passed by the Board of Revenue and during the pendency of the first appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority proceeded to vacate the interim order on 15.06.2006 and thereafter, an application moved by the respondent No.7 was allowed by the Collector concerned on 17.06.2006; and it has been pointed out that the possession of the land in question was delivered to the respondent No.7 on 20.06.2006. In view of this position, this Court is of opinion that the present case does not warrant any interference now at this stage at the instance of the petitioner so as to bring about any other state of affairs than the one that has continued for over two years. Even otherwise, the learned Member of the Board while passing the order dated 06.10.2006 has taken into comprehension all the facts and circumstances and so also 6 the rival submissions and after being satisfied that the appeal involved legal issues, admitted the same for hearing but found no case for stay being made out. The order so passed by the learned Member of the Board does not appear suffering from any jurisdictional error. In the totality of the circumstances of this case, even while not going into any other aspect of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the discretionary order as passed by the Board of Revenue in refusing the prayer for interim relief. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be dismissed. However, in the interest of justice it need be, and is, observed that any observation made in this order or even any observation made by the learned Member of the Board in the impugned order dated 06.10.2006 shall have no effect on the consideration of the appeal as preferred by the petitioner on its merits; and the Board shall, obviously, be considering the appeal on its merits without being influenced by the fact that the interim relief has not been granted to the petitioner. Subject to the observations aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/