Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Challenge in the present case is made to the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 15.5.2007 and the order of the Revenue Board dated 8.7.2008 by which the said order was upheld. The Revenue Appellate Authority by the aforesaid order has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4, in which her application u/s.212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver was rejected.
(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the receiver could not be appointed for the entire land because it was 5.57 hectares of land, in which three brothers had shares and respondent no.4 Gayatri has brought share of one of the brother Ram Sahay, whose legal heirs have sold land of 1.24 hectares to respondent no.2 Gayatri. It is contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority ignored the fact that with regard to this very land, civil suit was pending and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in his order dated 3.5.2007 directed that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to land in dispute.
(3.) In the first place, the receiver could not have been appointed in the face of status quo order passed in the civil suit. Secondly, the direction of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that if the petitioners fail to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- per annum for 2/5th share of the total land, the receiver shall take charge of entire land measuring 5.57 hectares.;