IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2350/2008 Ram Prasad & Ors. Vs. Hariya & Ors. 17.7.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri M. Iqbal Khan, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Tiwari ] Shri Rishi Parashar ]for the respondent. Shri Manoj Bhardwaj ] The matter comes up on the application No.22099 dated 3.7.2008 under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India submitted by the respondent with the prayer for vacation of exparte interim order dated 13.3.2008 passed by this court whereby the operation of the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Board of Revenue vide Annexure-5 has been stayed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the arguments on writ petition and stay application being same the matter may be decided finally. Heard learned counsel for the parties. An appeal was filed by the respondent No.1 against the decision of the learned trial court dated 8.4.1994 before the Revenue Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority the same came to be dismissed for non prosecution. An application for restoration of the appeal was filed which was dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The respondent approached the Board of Revenue against the dismissal of the restoration application. The learned Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the application for restoration of the appeal afresh. Before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority the respondent moved an application of stay in the Restoration proceedings on which the learned Revenue Appellate Authority passed an order dated 10.9.2007, which has been filed as Annexure-1, directing the petitioner herein to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and the entries in the record in respect of the land in dispute. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.9.2007 before the learned Board of Revenue and learned Board of Revenue having heard the matter at the Jaipur bench of the Board of Revenue passed the order dated 10.10.2007 issuing the notice to the respondents and also stayed the operation of the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10.9.2007, further the case was fixed for 9.1.2008. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 moved an application before the learned B.O.R. under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for restraining the petitioner herein not to alienate the property in dispute to any third party. The said application was filed on 13.11.2007 and the petitioner herein, who was the petitioner before the Board of Revenue did not appear when the case was taken up on the said application dated 13.11.2007 on 22.11.2007 and therefore the learned Board of Revenue proceeded exparte against the present petitioner and accepted the application dated 13.11.2007 and restrained the petitioner herein from alienating the property in dispute. Being aggrieved by the exparte order dated 22.11.2007 the petitioner has approached this court in writ jurisdiction. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure-5) was passed at the back of the petitioner at the main seat of the B.O.R. at Ajmer, when the case was heard at Jaipur and the petitioner could not appear at Ajmer when the case was called as they had no notice of hearing. It is further submitted that at present there are two contrary orders passed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 10.10.2007, passed by the learned B.O.R. staying the operation of the order passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar dated 10.9.2007, and another order dated 22.11.2007 on the application dated 13.11.2007 filed by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was apprehension that the petitioner herein may dispose of the property and therefore the respondent was compelled to move an application on 13.11.2007 and further that a copy of the said application had allegedly been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is thus submitted that it is wrong to contend that the petitioner had no notice. It is however not in dispute that after the interim order passed by this court on 13.3.2008 staying the operation of the order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 22.11.2007, the petitioner has not in any manner alienated the property nor any third party rights have been created after the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Board of Revenue staying the operation of the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority when the petitioner could have done so. More over the first requirement to examine the prima facie case has not been done and no finding has been recorded. The respondent No.1 has shown undue haste in the matter by filing the application dated 13.11.2007. Learned Board of Revenue had issued notice to the respondents returnable on 9.01.2008 to be heard at the Jaipur Bench of the Board of Revenue if there was any urgency in the matter to vacate/modify the exparte order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Board of Revenue a notice to the petitioner ought to have been issued for hearing the matter at Jaipur by pre-poning the date. The order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Board of Revenue cannot be upheld as there was no opportunity for the petitioner to remain present on the date of the hearing of the application on 22.11.2007 when the case was taken up at the main seat of the Board of Revenue at Ajmer. As the petitioner had no notice that the mater would be heard on 22.11.2007 at Ajmer. The counsel to whom the copy of the application dated 13.11.2007 was served not aware of the date 22.11.2007 in absence of any notice of the date fixed and place of hearing sent by the Board of Revenue as such when the case was called none appeared for the petitioner. Thus the order dated 22.11.2007 does not confirm to the requirement of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Apart from the above, the passing of the order dated 22.11.2007 by the learned Board of Revenue has resulted in there being two orders passed by the learned Board of Revenue in operation. The first order is dated 10.10.2007 passed on the application submitted by the present petitioner staying the operation of the order dated 10.9.2007 directing the petitioner to maintain status quo, passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority which had been challenged in Revision before the learned Board of Revenue and by the second order dated 22.11.2007 the learned Board of Revenue, without taking into account it earlier order dated 10.10.2007 has passed a restrain order against the petitioner. Thus on the one hand by order dated 10.10.2007 the order of status quo has been stayed and without setting aside the order dated 10.10.2007 the restrain order dated 22.11.2007 has been passed. There were thus two contradictory orders. The learned Board of Revenue has therefore passed an order dated 22.11.2007 without for affording any opportunity to the petitioner who was not heard on the application dated 13.11.2007 and the result of the order dated 22.11.2007 being the existence of two contradictory orders, the order dated 22.11.2007 is consequently set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice. The facts mentioned above go to show that the main case of the restoration of the appeal which was filed by the respondent before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority against the judgment and decree passed in the year 1994 is yet to be decided the parties have been litigating on the interim relief without recording any satisfaction on the requirement of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The application is also disposed of. The application No.22099 dated 3.7.2008 is also disposed of. In the facts and circumstances it is directed that the parties shall appear before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar who shall decide the restoration application within three months. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 4.8.2008. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS