1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6533/2002 Smt. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :- 15.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Hanuman Sharma, for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.08.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) whereby the learned Board has set aside the order of status-quo passed by the Assistant Collector, Chomu dated 30.06.1997, and the order dated 14.06.2000, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA', for short) whereby it had confirmed the order passed by Assistant Collector. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 had filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners before the Assistant Collector & Executive Magistrate, Chomu on 27.02.1997. Simultaneously the petitioners filed an application U/s 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along with the suit. According to the application, 2 they have their ancestral agricultural land bearing old Khasra No.239, measuring 3 bighas and 14 biswa, Khasra No.306, measuring 1 bigha and 2 biswa, Khasra No.309, measuring 6 bigha and 8 biswa, Khasra No.1553/2386, measuring 2 bigha and 10 biswa, situated in village Merija. The petitioner's father and grand-fathers Shri Gopi Nath and Malla Nath @ Malu Nath cultivated the said land during their lifetime. It was further pleaded in the application that the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and the respondents are having a dispute regarding the lands bearing Khasra No.306 & bearing khasra No.308 and the petitioner No.1 to 5 and respondents are cultivating their shares in the lands. But after death of their fore-fathers, the respondent Nos.5 & 6 developed some malice in their mind. They used to claim that the petitioner Nos.3, 4 & 5 have nothing to do with the land and they have no share in it. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 are the only heirs of late Gopinath. The petitioners are in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute; the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are in cultivatory possession on 1/5 share in the land; the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 have 1/5 share in the land. The respondents are threatening the petitioners that the land will now be mutated in 3 their names and the petitioners will be dispossessed from it. The respondents filed their reply to the application and denied most of the contents of the application. But vide order dated 30.06.1997, the learned Assistant Collector, Chomu accepted the application and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in dispute and not to transfer or sell it to any other person and not to interfere with use and cultivation of the land of each others. Against the order dated 30.06.1997, the respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed an appeal before the RAA. But vide order dated 14.06.2000, the learned RAA dismissed the appeal. However, during this period, the concerned patwari under the instructions of the Office Kanungo, Tehsil Chomu, initiated mutation proceedings for the land in the name of the respondents. But during the proceedings, on 15.09.1998, Bharthari, the late husband of the petitioner Smt. Bhagwati, produced a copy of the order dated 30.06.1997 before the Camp for Redressal of Difficulties; Panchu and others produced record of proceedings of appeal pending before the RAA, Jaipur and according to which, the mutation was kept pending till 4 30.07.1997. Vide order dated 31.08.1999, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur directed the concerned revenue officials to cancel the mutation of the land made in the name of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed a revision before the the Board of Revenue, Ajmer challenging the order dated 14.06.2000 passed by the RAA. Vide judgment dated 23.08.2002, the learned Board allowed the revision filed by the respondents and quashed and set aside the orders dated 30.06.1997 & 14.06.2000. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Hanuman Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the reasoning given by the learned Board is absolutely untenable. According to the Board, the order of status-quo is an unclear order. Therefore, the said order could not have been passed by the Assistant Collector. Moreover, the learned RAA had erred in confirming the order dated 30.06.1997 passed by the Assistant Collector. Although notices were issued to the respondents, even on earlier occasion no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents. According 5 to the order sheet dated 29.04.2009, this Court had clearly stated that in case no one appears on behalf of the respondents on the next date, this Court shall have no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the respondents. Even today no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the order dated 23.08.2002 clearly reveals that the only reason given by the Board for setting aside the orders dated 30.06.1997 and 14.06.2000 is that “the order of status quo is an unclear order.” However, the learned Board has not given any cogent reason for concluding that the said two orders are unclear. A bare perusal of the order dated 30.06.1997 clearly reveals that the Assistant Collector had not only directed that the status quo be maintained with regard to the land in dispute, but had also clearly directed that the land shall neither be mortgaged, nor be transferred, nor the possession of that land be given to any third party. He had 6 further directed that the land could not be mortgaged, transferred or possession given to either of the respondents, or through any agent, or through servant, or through workmen. Therefore, the very order was absolutely clear in its ambit and scope. Since clear directions have been given by the Assistant Collector, directions which were subsequently upheld by the learned RAA, it is difficult to understand as to how the learned Board has concluded that “the order is unclear”. Since the learned Board has not assigned any cogent reasons for giving its conclusion, the impugned order is, certainly, a non-speaking order. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.08.2002 and in confirming the orders dated 30.06.1997 and 14.06.2000. Therefore, the order dated 23.08.2002 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the orders dated 30.06.1997 & 14.06.2000 are, hereby, confirmed. This writ petition is, hereby, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki