CWP-4774/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R (1)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4774/2010 Smt. Suraj Bai Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (2)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4787/2010 Nandlal Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (3)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4788/2010 Parmanand Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (4)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4823/2010 Smt. Mamta Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (5)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4824/2010 Smt. Seema Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (6)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4825/2010 Nandesh Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (7)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4826/2010 Ganesh Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. (8)SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4827/2010 Rambhagat Modi Vs.Board of Revenue & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 09/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. SM Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for petitioners. Mr. Saket Pareek, for respondents. Since the grievance raised in all the writ petitions are similar, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Instant writ petitions have been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dt. 29/03/2010 whereby, while admitting the revision petition preferred by the respondents under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the, operation of the interim orders passed by the SDO and so also the Revenue Appellate Authority has been stayed by the Board of CWP-4774/2010 2 Revenue. Counsel submits that in the suit filed for permanent injunction under Section 188 of the Rajsthan Tenancy Act, application was filed under Section 212 for interim relief and both the courts below i.e. SDO and Revenue Appellate Authority granted interim order in favour of petitioners which has been stayed without assigning any reason under order impugned dt. 29/03/2010. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned itself is an interim order and the petitioners are having liberty to make submissions when the revision petition comes for hearing and in such situation, this Court may not like to interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that if the order is maintained by this Court, at least it may be observed that if the suit preferred by the petitioners is later on dismissed, they should be adequately compensated in regard to the loss which may cause to them because of the vexatious proceedings being initiated at the behest of the present petitioners. Taking note of the submissions made by counsel for the parties and after examining the record and in the facts and circumstances of CWP-4774/2010 3 the instant case, the operation of the order dated 29/03/2010 passed by the Board of Revenue shall remain stayed and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo which will be subject to final outcome of the revision petition preferred by the respondents pending before the Board of Revenue but at the same time this Court would like to observe that if the suit preferred by the petitioners is finally rejected, the authority may consider as to in what manner the respondents can be compensated if any loss is caused to them. Since the revision petition arises from the order under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, it is expected from the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition expeditiously but in no case later than three months. Copy of this order may also be sent to the Board of Revenue. With these directions and observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.3/ 4774-CW-2010-final.doc