CW 10190/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10190/2008 Ramesh Chandra Versus Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order ::: 15/07/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RK Mathur, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by defendant assailing order dt.12/02/99 (Ann.5) of the SDO Karauli passed in exercise of powers U/s 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, against which further appeals were preferred by him but all were rejected by revenue appellate authority and the Board of Revenue and that apart, review petition was also dismissed vide order dt.25/06/08 (Ann.9). Respondents (plaintiffs) instituted a revenue suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction & possession, and filed application seeking temporary injunction U/s 212 of Tenancy Act pendente suit. After taking note of material on record, the SDO Karauli while deciding application for temporary injunction U/s 212 of Tenancy Act vide order impugned observed that the suit land may not be put to auction provided the defendant shall pay Rs.1,000/- as cash security on 30th June & 30th CW 10190/08 //2// September every year failing which suit land may be taken in possession and attached by appointment of Tehsildar as Receiver and accordingly cultivation of suit land would be managed pendente suit, against which petitioner preferred appeals but the same were dismissed by both the revenue courts. Finally the Board of Revenue took note of factual position of suit land in para 7 and observed that in Jamabandi of Samvat year 2010 to 2013 it was shown in the name of deity and in Samvat Year 2015 alongwith the name of agriculturist Chiranji S/o Chunni Mahajan; and thereafter some where in Samvat Year 2026, name of deity was erased and mutation was made in the name of Chiranji and later on in Samvat year 2048-51, petitioner's name was entered in revenue record. Since the title was disputed and petitioner being in possession, finally order of SDO was upheld with the observations (supra). The dispute is still pending before competent authority and only interim arrangement has been made in exercise of powers U/s 212 of Tenancy Act. Having considered material on record, this Court does not find any manifest error in the findings concurrently arrived at by three CW 10190/08 //3// revenue courts under orders impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/10190CW08-Jul15-Ds.doc