IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1575 of 2006. Leela Ram son of Shri Data Ram and Others VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 04/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. Hariprasad Jangid, for Mr.JR Tantia, for the Petitioners **** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.12.2005 so far as it relates to the rejection of his revision petition, titled as Leela Ram and Others Vs. Prabhati & Others in view of modification of the interim order passed by the Court of S.D.O. dated 31.03.1999 against the present petitioners, who were defendants there, but no order was passed against the State. However, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer has amended the said order by restraining the State also from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondents. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that his case was recommended for regularization of the land in dispute by the Tehsildar on 15.11.2002, but the private respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, along with temporary injunction, wherein an injunction was granted against the present petitioners, who were defendants there, and no order was passed against the State. Both the parties filed appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the same were dismissed on 04.09.2000, against which both the parties have filed revision petitions and the revision petition filed by the respondents-plaintiff was accepted, considering the prima-facie case in his favour, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and further modified the said interim order of the S.D.O. by enforcing the same against the State and Tehsildar. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during continuation of the recommendation for regularization he has a right to continue in possession, but from the facts considered by the learned Court below for the purpose of grant of interim order, it is clear that the plaintiff-respondents are in possession. I have no reason to disagree with the said finding. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/