BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 23. 2. 95 (Annex. 3) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. This petition has arisen following circumstances when Ramu Ram belonging to Scheduled Caste had sold his land to the present petitioner by a registered sale deed dt. 26. 6. 71. The respondent-State initiated proceedings against the petitioner u/s. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act inter alia on the ground that above sale was in clear violation of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which prohibits transfer of land of a member of the Scheduled Caste to a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste. During the pendency of these proceedings a receiver was appointed by the Assistant Collector by his order dt. 4. 6. 74 to manage the property about pending proceedings before him. Assistant Collector vide his order dt. 2nd Sept. 1975 declared that sale of the land in question was in violation of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is illegal and void and directed that land should revert to the Govt. . The Tehsildar was directed to take possession of the land in compliance of the order. The appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the present petitioner was also dismissed on 19. 5. 77. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order the present petitioner preferred a Revision No. TA/178/82/ganganagar before the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dt. 14. 2. 83 allowed the revision on the ground that vendor Ramu Ram whose rights were being considered had not been impleaded as party and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for trial afresh after impleading Ramu Ram. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Assistant Collector on remand an application was made by the State on 29. 05. 1991 praying that since receiver was appointed in 4. 6. 74 but he has not auctioned the property thereafter, therefore he should be directed to take possession of the land and conduct the auction of the land in question. It was stated that since order dt. 4. 6. 74 appointing receiver pending the proceedings had not been challenged, the order still subsists. This application was allowed by the SDO Hanumangarh on 4. 6. 91. The order dt. 4. 6. 91 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way of revision which has been dismissed by order dt. 23. 2. 95. In these circumstances the present petition has been filed by the said transferee of the land. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the proceedings initiated at the instance of the State Govt. during which a receiver was appointed by the Assistant Collector came to an end on 2nd Sept. 1975 when the Assistant Collector declared the sale in her favour to be invalid and also directed that land be reverted to the Government. The order by which the Tehsildar was directed to take possession of the land in compliance of the order appointing him receiver came to an end. In absence of any interim order on passing of the order dt. 2. 9. 75 land had to be handed over to State Govt. in its own right and possession of the Tehsildar could not have continued as a receiver. However it appears that thereafter the possession has not been handed over to the State Govt. as it appears from the application itself that it requires an order to take possession from the receiver.
(3.) IN these circumstances it has been contended by the learned counsel that since the appointment of receiver made on 4. 6. 74 had come to an end on the culmination of proceedings before the Assistant Collector on 2. 9. 75. Thereafter when the order passed by the Assistant Collector itself has been set aside, the petitioner was entitled to restitution of the land which under the order of the Assistant Collector were to revert to State Govt. and unless there is another order by which restitution is stayed and a receiver is appointed, he continues to be in possession of land in his own right which cannot be disturbed on the anvil of order dt. 4. 6. 74. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Jain urged that as the proceedings had not been quashsed but the matter has only been remanded the order passed during the trial before the Assistant Collector automatically revives and it must be deemed that the order appointing receiver also stood revived. The application made by the State Govt. was only for the purpose of seeking direction to the receiver for discharging his obligations. I have given my careful considerations to the rival contentions. The duration for which a receiver is appointed in a given case has not been provided specifically under any provision. However the question is not res integra and it stands settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal Patni vs. Loonkaran Sethiya & Others (1) wherein the Court stated the law about the duration of appointment as receiver, in the following words: " The law may briefly be stated thus if a receiver is appointed in a suit until judgment, the appointment is brought to an end by the judgment in the act on. If a receiver is appointed in a suit, without his tenure being expressly defined, he will continue to be receiver till he is discharged. But after the final disposal of the suit as between the parties to the litigation, the receiver's functions are terminated, he would still be answerable to the Court as its officer has ample power to continue the receiver even after the final decree. " ;