1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 538 of 1992 RAZAK & ANR V/S B.O.R. & ORS Mr. AK RAJVANSHY, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MAHIRAM BISHNOI for Mr. GM BHANDARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 21.5.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- The petitioner by this petition seeks to challenge the order of the Revenue Board, Annex.17, and that of Revenue Appellate Authority, Annex.16, and prays that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23.1.88, Annex.15 be restored. Though there has been a long drawn litigation in the matter of appointment of receiver, and the matter had traveled to the Revenue Board more than ones. The bare facts necessary to decide the writ petition are, that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Section 88, 188 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioner, alleging inter-alia the land in question to be of his khatedari and having been given for cultivation to Peeru, and after his death, his sons having illegally put the petitioners in possession of the land, and petitioners are using a part of the disputed land for 2 residential purposes and are raising construction, while petitioner No.2 has erected a workshop on the portion of the disputed land. Thus, the land is being used for non- agricultural purposes. Alongwith the suit, application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was also filed for appointment of the receiver, whereupon the learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.3.86 dismissed that application, and simply restrained the defendants from raising any further construction. However, in appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.6.86 confirmed the ad interim order dated 2.4.86 appointing receiver. Against that order, a revision was filed before the Revenue Board, which was decided on 15.5.87, and thereby the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector with a direction to get the land measured in presence of the parties, and some further directions, the learned Assistant Collector in turn directed Tehsildar to take measurements, and the Tehsildar submitted the report on 3.9.87, against which certain objections were filed, and ultimately the Assistant Collector himself also inspected the site, and vide order dated 23.1.88 (Annex.15) dismissed the application for appointment of the receiver. Against that, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff, and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 8.2.88 accepted the same, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector again to 3 inspect the site, and take measurements, and directed the inspection to be made on 18.2.88 in presence of the parties, and thereafter necessary orders were directed to be passed in compliance of the Revenue Board's order dated 15.8.87. Before the Revenue Board, it was pointed out that pursuant to the remand order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8.2.88, the site has already been inspected, and therefore, the revision becomes infructuous, and the Board found the revision to be infructuous. However, at the same time, the Board proceeded to examine the matter on merits of the sustainability of appointment of the receiver, and ultimately, upheld the appointment of the receiver. At the same time, the learned SDO, Ratangarh to whom the case was transferred was directed to expeditiously decide the case, and also directed the parties to appear before him on 11.11.91. Against this judgment, the present writ petition was filed on 21.12.91, which came up for consideration for admission on 28.1.92 and the Division Bench of this Court on that day issued notice, as to why the writ be not admitted and allowed, and at the same time, in the stay file, directed that if the petitioners deposit Rs.10,000/- each in cash in the court of Assistant Collector, Ratangarh, Headquarter Sujangarh within a period of two weeks, and further submit an undertaking that if the matter is decided against them, they will remove the debris of the construction raised by them within a period of one year 4 from the date of the judgment, then the order appointing receiver on the business establishment/residential establishment of the petitioners was remain stayed. This order was subsequently confirmed on 25.1.95, noticing the petitioners to have deposited the amount, and also to have submitted the requisite undertaking. On 25.1.95, after hearing the other side, the writ petition had also been admitted. Thereafter, the matter came up before me on 18.11.2002, and on that day, a joint submission was made by both the learned counsel that instead of going into the correctness of the impugned order on merits, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the learned trial Court be directed to conclude the trial of the main suit within a period of one year from that day. Both the learned counsel further submitted that their respective clients will furnish undertaking before the learned trial Court, that henceforth they will not take any such step in the litigation which may at all have the effect of deferring or retarding the effective progress of the suit. Accordingly, this undertaking was directed to be filed within three weeks from that day, and the petition was ordered to be disposed of with a direction that the interim order granted by this Court shall subsist till disposal of the suit and the trial Court was directed to decide the main suit within a period of one year. At the same time, it was further directed that in case the parties fail to submit 5 undertaking, the order passed that day shall automatically deemed to have been recalled, and in that event the writ petition was ordered to be listed for hearing on merits. It appears that thereafter, undertaking was not filed, and it was informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent NO.7 has expired, and thereupon the matter went on for taking steps for substitution of legal representatives, service of notice of legal representatives, and so on. Ultimately it was on 17.1.2007 only that the legal representatives were taken on record, and thereafter, the matter has now come up for hearing. Today, Mr.Mahiram Bishnoi appeared and submitted that the client has taken away the file, and he and Mr.Bhandari have no instructions on behalf of the respondents. In the background of the above sequence of events, considering the fact that the suit is practically more than two decades old, and the joint submission made by both the learned counsel having been recorded on 18.11.2002 has not been stood by, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by the plaintiff, and today learned counsel for the plaintiff pleads no instructions. In this background, a look at the impugned order of the Board of Revenue Annex.17 itself also shows, that it was way-back on 24.9.91 that the learned Board of Revenue had directed learned trial Court to expedite the disposal of the case, and directed the parties to appear 6 before him on 11.11.91. Even from that date, more than 15 years have passed away. This, coupled with the fact, that the appointment of receiver had been stayed by this Court way-back in 1992 itself, and that stay had been confirmed in 1995. Thus, the operation of the order, Annex.17, has already remained stayed for more than 15 years. In such circumstances, it would be futile to go into the merits of the controversy, as to whether received should be appointed, or not, and the writ petition is simply required to be disposed of reiterating the directions given by the learned Revenue Board in Annex.17, by directing the trial Court, even now, to decide the suit most expeditiously, and in the meantime, the status quo, as it exists today, read with the interim order dated 28.1.92 and 25.1.95 be be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court to decide the main suit most expeditiously. At the same time, the status quo of the property in question coupled with the order dated 28.1.92 and 25.1.95 shall be maintained till disposal of the suit. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/