1 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1687/2003 (Ogad Ram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. ) Date of Order :: 9th February 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.R.S.Choudhary, for the petitioners. .... BY THE COURT Having heard learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 28.08.2002 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in Revision Petition No.273/2001. In the revenue suit filed on behalf of the deity concerned (respondent No.2 herein), an application came to be moved under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order XL Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer Jaitaran, having regard to the circumstances of the case, found it just and convenient to appoint the Tehsildar, Jaitaran as receiver in relation to the land in question by the order dated 24.05.2001 (Annex.2). However, in the appeal as preferred by the present petitioners (Appeal No.34/2001), the Revenue Appellate 2 Authority, Pali proceeded to modify the aforesaid interim order with the observations that though it was just to appoint a receiver so as to protect the interests of the deity but it was also justified if the actual possession of the present petitioners be not disturbed. The Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, found it proper to allow the petitioners to retain the land in their possession on the condition of furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.2,000/- per bigha per annum. The order so passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali on 22.09.2001 (Annex.3) was questioned by the petitioners in Revision Petition No.273/2001 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer that has been decided by the impugned order dated 28.08.2002 (Annex.4). The learned member of the Board of Revenue though found that there was no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority but taking a compassionate view of the matter with reference to the then prevailing drought conditions and the fertility of the land in question, considered it proper to reduce the amount of cash security from Rs.2,000/- per bigha per annum to Rs. 1,000/- per bigha per annum. The order as passed by Board of Revenue appears to be just and proper, looking to the subject matter of the dispute 3 particularly when the land in question is claimed to be that of the deity concerned. The defendants-petitioners have yet been permitted to continue with their possession subject to furnishing of cash security in the sum of Rs.1,000/- per bigha per annum. The Board of Revenue has already taken rather a liberal view of the matter and has reduced the amount of cash security as directed by the Revenue Appellate Authority to the half. There does not appear any reason or justification to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the condition of furnishing the cash security is quite onerous for the petitioners and looking to the circumstances of the case, the Trial Court may be directed to decide the suit expeditiously. In this regard, suffice is to observe that it is always open for the petitioners to make the necessary prayer before the Trial Court concerned for proceeding with the matter expeditiously; and there appears no basis to assume that such a request, if made by the petitioners, would not receive due consideration by the learned Trial Court. No directions, however, seem requisite in this writ petition. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 4 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni