IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2181 of 1997. Jagdev Singh son of Shri Bhag Singh VERSUS Tarsem Singh son of Shri Chandan Singh & Others Date Of Order ::: 30/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Counsel for the Respondent No.3. By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer : i) “restrain the respondent No.3 Bank and respondent No.4 from auctioning the land of Khasra No.13 situated in Village Pagara, Tehsil Kishangunj (District Baran) and Khasra No.248/7 situated in Village Karvari Kalan belonging to the petitioner while realizing its loan amount, which is payable by respondent no.1 & 2 only. ii) the cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. iii) any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble petitioner”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a owner of the disputed land, which was wrongly got entered by the respondent no.1 and 2 and the same is now being auctioned by the respondent no.3 Bank, in pursuance of the due amount of loan taken by the respondent no.1 and 2, therefore, the respondent no.3 Bank may be restrained from auctioning the land, in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. Mahesh Gupta, contended that they are the owners of the disputed land, and they have rightly mortgaged the same with the respondent-Bank, as equitable mortgage against their loan amount. He further contended that the petitioner is not residing in India, and the present writ petition has been filed by his Power-of-Attorney, who has no right to file the same. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 applied for a loan, and the land in dispute was mortgaged against the said amount by them as they were Khatedar tenants of the same, and on failure of payment of dues of loan amount, the Bank was left with no option, except to recover the amount by putting the land in dispute for auction. The petitioner has no right whatsoever on the land in dispute, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to refer any documents in his favour showing his title over the land, in dispute. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of “jamabandi”, Annexure 2 & 3, wherein the respondents no.1 and 2 have been shown, as recorded tenant of the land bearing Khasra Nos.292/757 and 249. However, he refers the judgment of the Revenue Board, reported in 1990 R.R.D. Page 188 (annexure-1), which relates to the land bearing Khasra No.13 and 248/7. The order passed by the Revenue Board relates to the appointment of a receiver, wherein possession of a person over land is relevant, whereas in the present case the ownership over the land, in dispute is relevant. From the documents, annexed with the writ petition, it is clear that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the recorded tenant of the disputed land mortgaged with Bank. The petitioner has failed to prove any right whatsoever over the land, in dispute, which was mortgaged by the respondent nos.1 and 2 with the respondent-Bank. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/